J. W. Mason - SoundSage

View Details

In the first two years after Biden’s election, there was considerable enthusiasm on the left for the administration’s embrace of a larger, more active economic role for the federal government. I was among those who saw both the ambitions of the Build Back Better bill and the self-conscious embrace of industrial policy as an unexpectedly sharp break with the economic policy consensus of the past thirty years.

Biden squandered that early promise with his embrace of Israel’s campaign of mass murder in Gaza. His legacy will be the piles of shattered buildings and children’s corpses that he, with aides like Antony Blinken, did so much to create.

The administration has also struck a Trumpian note on immigration, promising to shut down the border to desperate asylum seekers. And internationally, it is committed to a Manichean view of the world where the United States is locked into a perpetual struggle for dominance with rivals like Russia and China.

Can industrial policy be salvaged from this wreckage? I am not sure….

This piece was published in the Fall 2024 issue of Dissent. At their request, I’ve taken the full text down from this site. You can read the rest there. I will put the full piece back here in a month or two.

View Details

(I am an occasional contributor to roundtables of economists in the magazine The International Economy. This month’s roundtable was on concerns that ultra-low interest rates after the 2007-2009 financial crisis contributed to rising inequality and asset bubbles, and asked contributors to grade post-2007 monetary policy on a scale of A to F.)

Overall, I give the negative interest rate experiment a grade of B. The costs of negative rates have been greatly exaggerated. But so have the benefits. The main lesson is that conventional monetary policy is surprisingly weak in a depressed economy, even when carried to extremes. The next time we need stimulus, greater weight should be put on fiscal policy.

The case against ultra-low rates on distribution grounds is not very strong, in my view. Yes, low rates do tend to raise asset values, and it’s the rich who own most of the assets. But we should not make the mistake so many people do, and confuse a change in the present value of future income streams with a change in those streams themselves. Low rates, for example, imply a greater present value of the same future dividend payments, and thus higher stock prices. But that has no effect on income distribution — the owners of the stock are receiving the same payments as they were before.

The bigger criticism of ultra-low rates is that they didn’t have much effect one way or another. Did 20 years of zero nominal rates in Japan significantly boost demand and growth? It doesn’t seem like it.

At the same time, we should be careful of language like “distortion,” which suggests that there is some true, natural level of interest rates and investment. Whether high or low, interest rates are always set by policy. And this always involves tradeoffs between competing social goals.

Whether ultra-low rates contribute to bubbles is debatable. Many of the world’s great bubbles — from the 1920s in the US to the 1990s in Sweden — have occurred in environments of high interest rates. But let’s say for the sake of argument that cryptocurrency is socially useless, and that it would never have taken off if rates were higher. Is this a problem with negative rates? Or is it a problem with the financial system? The reason we have so many well-educated, well-compensated people working in finance is that they are supposed to direct credit to the best opportunities. If cheap money leads them to invest in projects that are worthless, or worse, rather than ones with moderate returns, they’re not doing their jobs.

If jet fuel were free, we would all probably fly more. But if planes kept crashing into the ocean, we’d blame the airlines, not the cheap fuel.

Speaking of airlines, it’s easy in retrospect to see the subsidized loans to them and other pandemic-hit industries as excessive. But we don’t know what the counterfactual is — it’s possible that without public support, they would have collapsed into bankruptcy, leading to a much slower recovery. Certainly we couldn’t be sure at the time. Under the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, there was no safe course, only a balance of risks. The high inflation of 2021-2022 was unfortunate; a prolonged depression would have been much worse. Perhaps next time — and climate change ensures that there will be a next time — we will strike a better balance. But it seems to me that under the circumstances, policymakers did pretty well.

That’s what I wrote for the symposium. Let me add a couple of things here.

First, this is not a new debate. Many of the same arguments were being made immediately after the global financial crisis, and even before it in the mid-2000s, in the context of the supposed global savings glut. At that time, the idea was that the volume of excess savings in Asia were too great to be absorbed by productive investment in the US and elsewhere, leading to downward pressure on interest rates and an excess of speculative investment, in housing especially.

It’s progress, I suppose, that the more recent period of low interest rates is attributed straightforwardly to central banks, as opposed to an imagined excess of “saving.” (For a critique of the savings-glut story, you can’t do better than Jörg Bibow’s excellent work.) But the more fundamental problem remains that the savings-glut/too-low-for-too-long stories never explain how they coexist with all the other economic stories in which more abundant financing is unambigously a good thing. As I wrote a dozen years ago1:

the savings glut hypothesis fails to answer two central, related questions: Why was there a lack of productive investments available to be financed, and why did the financial system fail to channel the inflow of savings in a sustainable way? From a Keynesian perspective, there is nothing strange about the idea of a world where savings rates are chronically too high, so that output is demand-constrained; but this is not the perspective from which the savings-glut hypothesisers are arguing. In other contexts, they take it for granted that an increase in the savings rate will result in greater investment and faster growth.

In particular, as I pointed out there, many of the same people arguing for these stories also think that it is very desirable to reduce government budget deficits. But if you ask any economist what is the economic benefit of moving the government balance toward surplus, their answer will be that it frees up saving for the private sector; that is, lower interest rates.2

Second. Returning to the International Economy roundtable, it’s striking how many of the contributors shared my basic analysis3 — ultra-low rates didn’t achieve very much, but they were better than nothing given the failure of the budget authorities to undertake adequate stimulus. It’s interesting is that people with this same analysis — and who also reject the idea that the low rates of the 2010s are to blame for the inflation of the early 2020s — give such different responses on the grading component. I agree with everything that Jamie Galbraith writes, and especially appreciate his points that hardly any private borrowers ever faced zero (let alone negative) rates, and that higher rates do not seem to have done much to curb speculative excess. (Just look at “AI”.) I also agree with everything Heiner Flassbeck says (especially the underappreciated point that we’ve also had a decisive test of the benefits of wage flexibility, with negative results) and with almost everything Brigitte Granville says. Yet two of us give As and Bs, and two give Ds and Fs. It’s the difference between comparing monetary policy’s actual performance to what it reasonably could have accomplished, and to what it promised, perhaps.

Finally. It might seem strange to see me speaking so positively about macroeconomic policy over the past decade. Aren’t I supposed to be a radical of some sort?4 It was even a bit disconcerting to me to see I typed those words a few months ago (there’s a bit of turnaround time with these things), given that my main feelings about Western governments these days tend toward rage and disgust.

But the point here is important. It’s important to remember that the central macroeconomic problem in recent years has been insufficient demand.5 It’s important to remind people of the overwhelming evidence, and the quite broad consensus, that the economic problem over the past 15 years has not been a lack of real resources, but a lack of spending — of demand. (A world in which over-low interest rates could even be a concern, is not a world where the central economic problem is scarcity.) And I think that it’s true, and important, that the institutions — at least in the US and Western Europe — that were consistently trying to address this problem, were the central banks.

Even today, while we can certainly argue that central banks raised rates too aggressively, the main contractionary pressure is coming from elected governments. This is most obvious in Europe, but in the US, it seems to me, the withdrawal of pandemic unemployment benefits and the child tax credit have done more harm than anything the Fed has done. There’s an old idea that elected governments are structurally biased toward deficits and generous social benefits.6 But it’s clear this is no longer true, if it ever was.

Against this background, I think both the broader recognition of hysteresis and chronic demand shortfalls in the 2010s, and the aggressive response to the pandemic in this decade, are positive lessons that need to be preserved and defended and built upon. It’s very challenging to separate this positive record on domestic economic policy from the increasingly horrifying treatment of the rest of the world that we have seen from the same governments. (I make this argument in the context of industrial policy in a forthcoming piece in Dissent.) But I think it’s vitally important, both politically and analytically, that we continue to try to do so.

View Details

(Text of a talk I delivered at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University on June 17, 2024.)

There is an odd dual quality to the world around us.

Consider a building. It has one, two or many stories; it’s made of wood, brick or steel; heated with oil or gas; with doors, windows and so on. If you could disassemble the building you could make a precise quantitative description of it — so many bricks, so much length of wire and pipe, so many tiles and panes of glass.

A building also has a second set of characteristics, that are not visible to the senses. Every building has an owner, who has more or less exclusive rights to the use of it. It has a price, reflected in some past or prospective sale and recorded on a balance sheet. It generates a stream of money payments. To the owner from tenants to whom the owner delegated som of their rights. From the owner to mortgage lenders and tax authorities, and to the people whose labor keeps them operating — or to the businesses that command that labor. Like the bricks in the building’s walls or the water flowing through its pipes, these can be expressed as numbers. But unlike those physical quantities, all of these can be expressed in the same way, as dollars or other units of currency.

What is the relationship between these two sets of characteristics? Do the prices and payments simply describe the or reflect the physical qualities? Or do they have their own independent existence?

My starting point is that this is a problem — that the answer is not obvious.

The relationship between money-world and the concrete social and material world is long-standing, though not always explicit, question in the history of economic thought. A central strand in that history is the search for an answer that unifies these two worlds into one.

From the beginnings of economics down to today’s textbooks, you can find variations on the argument that money quantities and money payments are just shorthand for the characteristics and use of concrete material objects. They are neutral — mere descriptions, which can’t change the underlying things.

In 1752, we find David Hume writing that “Money is nothing but the representation of labour and commodities… Where coin is in greater plenty; as a greater quantity of it is required to represent the same quantity of goods; it can have no effect, either good or bad.”

And at the turn of the 21st century, we hear the same thing from FOMC member Lawrence Meyer: “Monetary policy cannot influence real variables–such as output and employment.” Money, he says, only affects “inflation in the long run. This immediately makes price stability … the direct, unequivocal, and singular long-term objective of monetary policy.”

We could add endless examples in between.

This view profoundly shapes most of our thinking about the economy.

We’ve all heard that money is neutral — that changes in the supply or availability of money only affect the price level while leaving relative prices and real activity unchanged. We’ve probably encountered the Coase Theorem, which says that the way goods are allocated to meet real human needs should be independent of who holds the associated property rights. We are used to talking about “real” output and “real “ interest rates without worrying too much about what they refer to.

There is, of course, also a long history of arguments on the other side — that money is autonomous, that money and credit are active forces shaping the concrete world of production and exchange, that there is no underlying value to which money-prices refer. But for the most part, these counter-perspectives occupy marginal or subterranean positions in economic theory, though they may have been influential in other domains.

The great exception is, of course, Keynes. Indeed, there is an argument that what was revolutionary about the Keynesian revolution was his break with orthodoxy on precisely this point. In the period leading up to the General Theory, he explained that the difference between the economic orthodoxy and the new theory he was seeking to develop was fundamentally the difference between the dominant vision of the economy in terms of what he called “real exchange,” and an alternative he vision he described as “monetary production.”

The orthodox theory (in our day as well as his) started from an economy in which commodities exchanged for other commodities, and then brought money in at a later stage, if at all, without changing the fundamental material tradeoffs on which exchange was based. His theory, by contrast, would describe an economy in which money is not neutral, and in which the organization of production cannot be understood in nonmonetary terms. Or in his words, it is the theory of “an economy in which money plays a part of its own and affects motives and decisions and is … so that the course of events cannot predicted, either in the long period or in the short, without a knowledge of the behavior of money.”

If you are fortunate enough to have been educated in the Keynesian tradition, then it’s easy enough to reject the idea that money is neutral. But figuring out how money world and concrete social reality do connect — that is not so straightforward.

I’m currently in the final stages of writing a book with Arjun Jayadev, Money and Things, that is about exactly this question — the interface of money world with the social and material world outside of it.

Starting from Keynes monetary-production vision, we explore question of how money matters in four settings.

First, the determination of the interest rate. There is, we argue, a basic incompatibility between a theory of the interest rate as price of saving or of time, and of the monetary interest rate we observe in the real world. And once we take seriously the idea of interest as the price of liquidity, we see why money cannot be neutral — why financial conditions invariably influence the composition as well as the level of expenditure.

Second, price indexes and “real” quantities. The ubiquitous “real” quantities constructed by economists are, we suggest, at best phantom images of monetary quantities. Human productive activity is not in itself describable in terms of aggregate quantities. Obviously particular physical quantities, like the materials in this building, do exist. But there is no way to make a quantitative comparison between these heterogeneous things except on the basis of money prices — prices are not measuring any preexisting value. Prices within an exchange community are objective, from the point of view of those within the community. But there is no logically consistent procedure for comparing “real” output once you leave boundaries of a given exchange community, whether across time or between countries

The third area we look at the interface of money world and social reality is corporate finance and governance. We see the corporation as a central site of tension between the distinct social logics of money and production. Corporations are the central institutions of monetary production, but they are not themselves organized on market principles. In effect, the pursuit of profit pushes wealth owners to accept a temporary suspension of the logic of market – but this can only be carried so far.

The fourth area is debt and capital. These two central aggregates of money-world are generally understood to reflect “real,” nonmonetary facts about the world — a mass of means of production in the case of capital, cumulated spending relative to income in the case of debt. But the actual historical evolution of these aggregates cannot, we show, be understood in this way in either case. The evolution of capital as we observe it, in the form of wealth, is driven by changes in the value of existing claims on production, rather than the accumulation of new capital goods. These valuation changes in turn reflect, first, social factors influencing division of income between workers and owners and, second, financial factors influencing valuations of future income streams. Debt is indeed related to borrowing, in a way that capital is not related to accumulation. But changes in indebtedness over time owe as much to interest, income and price-level changes that affect burden of existing debt stock as they do to new borrowing. And in any case borrowing mainly finances asset ownership, as opposed to the dissaving that the real-excahnge vision imagines it as.

Even with the generous time allotted to me, I can’t discuss all four of those areas. So in this talk I will focus on the interest rate.

Some of what I am going to say here may seem familiar, or obvious.

But I think it’s important to start here because it is so central to debates about money and macroeconomics. Axel Leijonhufvud long ago argued that the theory of the interest rate was at the heart of the confusion in modern macroeconomics. “The inconclusive quarrels … that drag on because the contending parties cannot agree what the issue is, largely stem from this source.” I think this is still largely true.

Orthodoxy thinks of the interest rate as the price of savings, or loanable funds, or alternatively, as the tradeoff between consumption in the future and consumption in the present.

Interest in this sense is a fundamentally non-monetary concept. It is a price of two commodities, based on the same balance of scarcity and human needs that are the basis of other prices. The tradeoff between a shirt today and a shirt next year, expressed in the interest rate, is no different between the tradeoff between a cotton shirt and a linen one, or one with short versus long sleeves. The commodities just happen to be distinguished by time, rather than some other quality.

Monetary loans, in this view, are just like a loan of a tangible object. I have a some sugar, let’s say. My neighbor knocks on the door, and asks to borrow it. If I lend it to them, I give up the use of it today. Tomorrow, the neighbor will return the same amount of sugar to me, plus something extra – perhaps one of the cookies they baked with it. Whatever income you receive from ownership of an asset — whether we call it interest, profit or cookies — is a reward for deferring your use of the concrete services that the asset provides.

This way of thinking about interest is ubiquitous in economics. In the early 19th century Nassau Senior described interest as the reward for abstinence, which gives it a nice air of Protestant morality. In a current textbook, in this case Gregory Mankiw’s, you can find the same idea expressed in more neutral language: “Saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply and demand … of loanable funds — households lend their savings to investors or deposit their savings in a bank that then loans the funds out.”

It’s a little ambiguous exactly how we are supposed to imagine these funds, but clearly they are something that already exists before the bank comes into the picture. Just as with the sugar, if their owner is not currently using them, they can lend them to someone else, and get a reward for doing so.

If you’ve studied macroeconomics at the graduate level, you probably spent much of the semester thinking about variations on this story of tradeoffs between stuff today and stuff in the future, in the form of an Euler equation equating marginal costs and benefits across time. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that mathematically elaborated versions of this story are the contemporary macro curriculum.

Money and finance don’t come into this story. As Mankiw says, investors can borrow from the public directly or indirectly via banks – the economic logic is the same either way.

We might challenge this story from a couple of directions.

One criticism — first made by Piero Sraffa, in a famous debate with Friedrich Hayek about 100 years ago — is that in a non monetary world each commodity will have its own distinct rate of interest. Let’s say a pound of flour trades for 1.1 pounds (or kilograms) of flour a year from now. What will a pound or kilo of sugar today trade for? If, over the intervening year, the price of usage rises relative to the price of flour, then a given quantity of sugar today will trade for a smaller amount of sugar a year from now, than the same quantity of flour will. Unless the relative price of flour and sugar are fixed, their interest rates will be different. Flour today will trade at one rate for flour in the future, sugar at a different rate; the use of a car or a house, a kilowatt of electricity, and so on will each trade with the same thing in the future at their own rates, reflecting actual and expected conditions in the markets for each of these commodities. There’s no way to say that any one of these myriad own-rates is “the” rate of interest.

Careful discussions of the natural rate of interest will acknowledge that it is only defined under the assumption that relative prices never change.

Another problem is that the savings story assumes that the thing to be loaned — whether it is a specific commodity or generic funds — already exists. But in the monetary economy we live in, production is carried out for sale. Things that are not purchased, will not be produced. When you decide not to consume something, you don’t make that thing available for someone else. Rather, you reduce the output of it, and the income of the producers of it, by the same amount as you reduce your own consumption.

Saving, remember, is the difference between income and consumption. For you as an individual, you can take my income as given when deciding how much to consume. So consuming less means saving more. But at the level of the economy as a whole, income is not independent of consumption. A decision to consume less does not raise aggregate saving, it lowers aggregate income. This is the fallacy of consumption emphasized by Keynes: individual decisions about consumption and saving have no effect on aggregate saving.

So the question of how the interest rate is determined, is linked directly to the idea of demand constraints.

Alternatively, rather than criticizing the loanable-funds story, we can start from the other direction, from the monetary world we actually live in. Then we’ll see that credit transactions don’t involve the sort of tradeoff between present and future that orthodoxy focuses on.

Let’s say you are buying a home.

On the day that you settle , you visit the bank to finalize your mortgage. The bank manager puts in two ledger entries: One is a credit to your account, and a liability to the bank, which we call the deposit. The other, equal and offsetting entry is a credit to the bank’s own account, and a liability for you. This is what we call the loan. The first is an IOU from the bank to you, payable at any time. The second is an IOU from you to the bank, with specified payments every month, typically, in the US, for the next 30 years. Like ordinary IOUs, these ledger entries are created simply by recording them — in earlier times it was called “fountain pen” money.

The deposit is then immediately transferred to the seller, in return for the title to the house. For the bank, this simply means changing the name on the deposit — in effect, you communicate to the bank that their debt that was payable to you, is now payable to the seller. On your balance sheet, one asset has been swapped for another — the $250,000 deposit, in this case, for a house worth $250,000. The seller makes the opposite swap, of the title to a house for an equal value IOU from the bank.

As we can see, there is no saving or dissaving here. Everyone has just swapped assets of equal value.

This mortgage is not a loan of preexisting funds or of anything else. No one had to first make a deposit at the bank in order to allow them to make this loan. The deposit — the money — was created in the process of making the loan itself. Banking does not channel saving to borrowing as in the loanable-funds view, but allows a swap of promises.

One thing I always emphasize to my students: You should not talk about putting money in the bank. The bank’s record is the money.

On one level this is common knowledge. I am sure almost everyone in this room could explain how banks create money. But the larger implications are seldom thought through.

What did this transaction consist of? A set of promises. The bank made a promise to the borrowers, and the borrowers made a promise to the bank. And then the bank’s promise was transferred to the sellers, who can transfer it to some third party in turn.

The reason that the bank is needed here is because you cannot directly make a promise to the seller.

You are willing to make a promise of future payments whose present value is worth more than the value the seller puts on their house. Accepting that deal will make both sides better off. But you can’t close that deal, because your promise of payments over the next 30 years is not credible. They don’t know if you are good for it. They don’t have the ability to enforce it. And even they trust you, maybe because you’re related or have some other relationship, other people do not. So the seller can’t turn your promise of payment into an immediate claim on other things they might want.

Orthodox theory starts from assumption that everyone can freely contract over income and commodities at any date in the future. That familiar Euler equation is based on the idea that you can allocate your income from any future period to consumption in the present, or vice versa. That is the framework within which the interest rate looks like a tradeoff between present and future. But you can’t understand interest in a framework that abstracts away from precisely the function that money and credit play in real economies.

The fundamental role of a bank, as Hyman Minsky emphasized, is not intermediation but acceptance. Banks function as third parties who broaden the range of transactions that can take place on the basis of promises. You are willing to commit to a flow of money payments to gain legal rights to the house. But that is not enough to acquire the house. The bank, on the other hand, precisely because its own promises are widely trusted, is in a position to accept a promise from you.

Interest is not paid because consumption today is more desirable than consumption in the future. Interest is paid because credible promises about the future are hard to make.

The cost of the mortgage loan is not that anyone had to postpone their spending. The cost is that the balance sheets of both transactors have become less liquid.

We can think of liquidity in terms of flexibility — an asset or a balance sheet position is liquid insofar as it broadens your range of options. Less liquidity, means fewer options.

For you as a homebuyer, the result of the transaction is that you have committed yourself to a set of fixed money payments over the next 30 years, and acquired the legal rights associated with ownership of a home. These rights are presumably worth more to you than the rental housing you could acquire with a similar flow of money payments. But title to the house cannot easily be turned back into money and thereby to claims on other parts of the social product. Home ownership involves — for better or worse — a long-term commitment to live in a particular place. The tradeoff the homebuyer makes by borrowing is not more consumption today in exchange for less consumption tomorrow. It is a higher level of consumption today and tomorrow, in exchange for reduced flexibility in their budget and where they will live. Both the commitment to make the mortgage payments and the non-fungibility of home ownership leave less leeway to adapt to unexpected future developments.

On the other side, the bank has added a deposit liability, which requires payment at any time, and a mortgage asset which in itself promises payment only on a fixed schedule in the future. This likewise reduces the bank’s freedom of maneuver. They are exposed not only to the risk that the borrower will not make payments, but also to the risk of capital loss if interest rates rise during the period they hold the mortgage, and to the risk that the mortgage will not be saleable in an emergency, or only at an unexpectedly low price. As real world examples like, recently, Silicon Valley Bank show, these latter risks may in practice be much more serious than the default risk. The cost to the bank making the loan is that its balance sheet becomes more fragile.

Or as Keynes put it in a 1937 article, “The interest rate … can be regarded as being determined by the interplay of the terms on which the public desires to become more or less liquid and those on which the banking system is ready to become more or less unliquid.”

Of course in the real world things are more complicated. The bank does not need to wait for the mortgage payments to be made at the scheduled time. It can transfer the mortgage to a third party, trading off some of the income it expected for a more liquid position. The buyer might be some other financial institution looking for a position farther toward the income end of the liquidity-income tradeoff, perhaps with multiple layers of balance sheets in between. Or the buyer might be the professional liquidity-providers at the central bank.

Incidentally, this is an answer to a question that people don’t ask often enough: How is it that the central bank is able to set the interest rate at all? The central bank plays no part in the market for loanable funds. But central banks are very much in the liquidity business.

It is monetary policy, after all, not savings policy.

One thing this points to is that there is no fundamental difference between routine monetary policy and the central bank’s role as a lender of last resort and a regulator. All of these activities are about managing the level of liquidity within the financial system. How easy is it to meet your obligations. Too hard, and the web of obligations breaks. Too easy, and the web of money obligations loses its ability to shape our activity, and no longer serves as an effective coordination device.

As the price of money — the price for flexibility in making payments as opposed to fixed commitments — the interest rate is a central parameter of any monetary economy. The metaphor of “tight” or “loose” conditions for high or low interest rates captures an important truth about the connection between interest and the flexibility or rigidity of the financial system. High interest rates correspond to a situation in which promises of future payment are worth less in terms of command over resources today. When it’s harder to gain control over real resources with promises of future payment, the pattern of today’s payments is more tightly linked to yesterday’s income. Conversely, low interest rates mean that a promise of future payments goes a long way in securing resources today. That means that claims on real resources therefore depend less on incomes in the past, and more on beliefs about the future. And because interest rate changes always come in an environment of preexisting money commitments, interest also acts as a scaling variable, reweighting the claims of creditors against the income of debtors.

In addition to credit transactions, the other setting in which interest appears in the real world is in the price of existing assets.

A promise of money payments in the future becomes an object in its own right, distinct from those payments themselves. I started out by saying that all sorts of tangible objects have a shadowy double in money-world. But a flow of money payments can also acquire a phantom double. A promise of future payment creates a new property right, with its owner and market price.

When we focus on that fact, we see an important role for convention in the determination of interest. To some important extent, bond prices – and therefore interest rates – are what they are, because that is what market participants expect them to be.

A corporate bond promises a set of future payments. It’s easy in a theoretical world of certainty, to talk as if the bond just is those future payments. But it is not.

This is not just because it might default, which is easy to incorporate into the model. It’s not just because any real bond was issued in a certain jurisdiction, and conveys rights and obligations beyond payment of interest — though these other characteristics always exist and can sometimes be important. It’s because the bond can be traded, and has a price which can change independent of the stream of future payments.

If interest rates fall, your bond’s price will rise — and that possibility itself is a factor in the price of the bond.

This helps explain a widely acknowledged anomaly in financial markets. The expectation hypothesis says that the interest rate on a longer bond should be the same as the average of shorter rates over the same period, or at least that they should be related by a stable term premium. This seems like a straightforward arbitrage, but it fails completely, even in its weaker form.

The answer to this puzzle is an important part of Keynes’ argument in The General Theory. Market participants are not just interested in the two payment streams. They are interested in the price of the long bond itself.

Remember, the price of an asset always moves inversely with its yield. When rates on a given type of credit instrument go up, the price of that instrument falls. Now let’s say it’s widely believed that a 10 year bond is unlikely to trade below 2 percent for very long. Then you would be foolish to buy it at a yield much below 2 percent, because you are going to face a capital loss when yields return to their normal level. And if most people believe this, then the yield never will fall below 2 percent, no matter what happens with short rates.

In a real world where the future is uncertain and monetary commitments have their own independent existence, there is an important sense in which interest rates, especially longer ones, are what they are because that’s what people expect them to be.

One important implication of this is that we cannot think of various market interest rates as simply “the” interest rate, plus a risk premium. Different interest rates can move independently for reasons that have nothing to do with credit risk.

On the one hand, we have a body of theory built up on the idea of “the” interest rate as a tradeoff between present and future consumption. On the other, we have actual interest rates, set in the financial system in quite different ways.

People sometimes try to square the circle with the idea of a natural rate. Yes, they say, we know about liquidity and the term premium and the importance of different kinds of financial intermediaries and regulation and so on. But we still want to use the intertemporal model we were taught in graduate school. We reconcile this by treating the model as an analysis of what the interest rate ought to be. Yes, banks set interest rates in all kinds of ways, but there is only one interest rate consistent with stable prices and, more broadly, appropriate use of society’s resources. We call this the natural rate.

This idea was first formulated around the turn of the 20th century by Swedish economist Knut Wicksell. But the most influential modern statement comes from Milton Friedman. He introduces the natural rate of interest, along with its close cousin the natural rate of unemployment, in his 1968 Presidential Address to the American Economics Association, which has been described as the most influential paper in economics since World War II. The natural rates there correspond to the rates that would be “ground out by the Walrasian system of general equilibrium equations, provided there is imbedded in them the actual structural characteristics of the labor and commodity markets, including market imperfections, stochastic variability in demands and supplies, the cost of gathering information … and so on.”

The appeal of the concept is clear: It provides a bridge between the nonmonetary world of intertemporal exchange of economic theory, and the monetary world of credit contracts in which we actually live. In so doing, it turns the intertemporal story from a descriptive one to a prescriptive one — from an account of how interest rates are determined, to a story about how central banks should conduct monetary policy.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell gave a nice example of how central bankers think of the natural rate in a speech a few years ago. He introduces the natural interest rate R with the statement that “In conventional models of the economy, major economic quantities … fluctuate around values that are considered ‘normal,’ or ‘natural,’ or ‘desired.’” R reflects “views on the longer-run normal values for … the federal funds rate” which are based on “ fundamental structural features of the economy.”

Notice the confusion here between the terms normal, natural and desired, three words with quite different meanings. R is apparently supposed to be the long-term average interest rate, and the interest rate that we would see in a world governed only fundamentals and* the interest rate that delvers the best policy outcomes.

This conflation is a ubiquitous and essential feature of discussions of natural rate. Like the controlled slipping between the two disks of a clutch in a car, it allows systems moving in quite different ways to be joined up without either side fracturing from the stress. The ambiguity between these distinct meanings is itself normal, natural and desired.

The ECB gives perhaps an even nicer statement: “At its most basic level, the interest rate is the ‘price of time’ — the remuneration for postponing spending into the future.” R* corresponds to this. It is a rate of interest determined by purely non monetary factors, which should be unaffected by developments in the financial system. Unfortunately, the actual interest rate may depart from this. In that case, the natural rate, says the ECB, “while unobservable … provides a useful guidepost for monetary policy.”

I love the idea of an unobservable guidepost. It perfectly distills the contradiction embodied in the idea of R*.

As a description of what the interest rate is, a loanable-funds model is merely wrong. But when it’s turned into a model of the natural rate, it isn’t even wrong. It has no content at all. There is no way to connect any of the terms in the model with any observable fact in the world.

Go back to Friedman’s formulation, and you’ll see the problem: We don’t possess a model that embeds all the “actual structural characteristics” of the economy. For an economy whose structures evolve in historical time, it doesn’t make sense to even imagine such a thing.

In practice, the short-run natural rate is defined as the one that results in inflation being at target — which is to say, whatever interest rate the central bank prefers.

The long-run natural rate is commonly defined as the real interest rate where “all markets are in equilibrium and there is therefore no pressure for any resources to be redistributed or growth rates for any variables to change.” In this hypothetical steady state, the interest rate depends only on the same structural features that are supposed to determine long-term growth — the rate of technical progress, population growth, and households’ willingness to defer consumption.

But there is no way to get from the short run to the long run. The real world is never in a situation where all markets are in equilibrium. Yes, we can sometimes identify long-run trends. But there is no reason to think that the only variables that matter for those trends are the ones we have chosen to focus on in a particular class of models. All those “actual structural characteristics” continue to exist in the long run.

The most we can say is this: As long as there is some reasonably consistent relationship between the policy interest rate set by the central bank and inflation, or whatever its target is, then there will be some level of the policy rate that gets you to the target. But there’s no way to identify that with “the interest rate” of a theoretical model. The current level of aggregate spending in the economy depends on all sorts of contingent, institutional factors, on sentiment, on choices made in the past, on the whole range of government policies. If you ask, what policy interest rate is most likely to move inflation toward 2 percent, all that stuff matters just as much as the supposed fundamentals.

The best you can do is set the policy rate by whatever rule of thumb or process you prefer, and then after the fact say that there must be some model where that would be the optimal choice.

Michael Woodford is the author of Interest and Prices, one of the most influential efforts to incorporate monetary policy into a modern macroeconomic model. He pretty explicitly acknowledges that’s what he was doing — trying to backfill a theory to explain the choices that central banks were already making.

What are the implications of this?

First, with regard to monetary policy, let’s acknowledge that it involves political choices made to achieve a variety of often conflicting social goals. As Ben Braun and others have written about very insightfully.

Second, recognizing that interest is the price of liquidity, set in financial markets, is important for how we think about sovereign debt.

There’s a widespread story about fiscal crises that goes something like this. First, a government’s fiscal balance (surplus or deficit) over time determines its debt-GDP ratio. If a country has a high debt to GDP, that’s the result of overspending relative to tax revenues. Second, the debt ratio determines to market confidence; private investors do not want to buy the debt of a country that has already issued too much. Third, the state of market confidence determines the interest rate the government faces, or whether it can borrow at all. Fourth, there is a clear line where high debt and high interest rates make debt unsustainable; austerity is the unavoidable requirement once that line is passed. And finally, when austerity restores debt sustainability, that will contribute to economic growth.

Alberto Alesina was among the most vigorous promoters of this story, but it’s a very common one.

If you accept the premises, the conclusions follow logically. Even better, they offer the satisfying spectacle of public-sector hubris meeting its nemesis. But when we look at debt as a monetary phenomenon, we see that its dynamics don’t run along such well-oiled tracks.

First of all, as a historical matter, differences in growth, inflation and interest rates are at least as important as the fiscal position in determining the evolution of the debt ratio over time. Where debt is already high, moderately slower growth or higher interest rates can easily raise the debt ratio faster than even very large surpluses can reduce it – as many countries subject to austerity have discovered. Conversely, rapid economic growth and low interest rates can lead to very large reductions in the debt ratio without the government ever running surpluses, as in the US and UK after World War II. More recently, Ireland reduced its debt-GDP ratio by 20 points in just five years in the mid-1990s while continuing to run substantial deficits, thanks to very fast growth of the “Celtic tiger” period.

At the second step, market demand for government debt clearly is not an “objective” assessment of the fiscal position, but reflects broader liquidity conditions and the self-confirming conventional expectations of speculative markets. The claim that interest rates reflect the soundness or otherwise of public budgets runs up against a glaring problem: The financial markets that recoil from a country’s bonds one day were usually buying them eagerly the day before. The same markets that sent interest rates on Spanish, Portuguese and Greek bonds soaring in 2010 were the ones snapping up their public and private debt at rock-bottom rates in the mid-2000s. And they’re the same markets that returned to buying those countries debt at historically low levels today, even as their debt ratios, in many cases, remained very high.

People like Alesina got hopelessly tangled up on this point. They wanted to insist both that post-crisis interest rates reflected an objective assessment of the state of public finances, and that the low rates before the crisis were the result of a speculative bubble. But you can’t have it both ways.

This is not to say that financial markets are never a constraint on government budgets. For most of the world, which doesn’t enjoy the backstop of a Fed or ECB, they very much are. But we should never imagine that financial conditions are an objective reflection of a country’s fiscal position, or of the balance of savings and investment.

The third big takeaway, maybe the biggest one, is that money is never neutral.

If the interest rate is a price, what it is a price of is not “saving” or the willingness to wait. It is not “remuneration for deferring spending,” as the ECB has it. Rather, it is of the capacity to make and accept promises. And where this capacity really matters, is where finance is used not just to rearrange claims on existing assets and resources, but to organize the creation of new ones. The technical advantages of long lived means of production and specialized organizations can only be realized if people are in a position to make long-term commitments. And in a world where production is organized mainly through money payments, that in turn depends on the degree of liquidity.

There are, at any moment, an endless number of ways some part of society’s resources could be reorganized so as to generate greater incomes, and hopefully use values. You could open a restaurant, or build a house, or get a degree, or write a computer program, or put on a play. The physical resources for these activities are not scarce; the present value of the income they can generate exceeds their costs at any reasonable discount rate. What is scarce is trust. You, starting on a project, must exercise a claim on society’s resources now; society must accept your promise of benefits later. The hierarchy of money allows participants in various collective projects to substitute trust in a third party for trust in each other. But trust is still the scarce resource.

Within the economy, some activities are more trust-intensive, or liquidity-constrained, than others.

Liquidity is more of a problem when there is a larger separation between outlays and rewards, and when rewards are more uncertain.

Liquidity is more of the problem when the scale of the outlay required is larger.

Liquidity and trust are more important when decisions are irreversible.

Trust is more important when something new is being done.

Trust is more scarce when we are talking about coordination between people without any prior relationship.

These are the problems that money and credit help solve. Abundant money does not just lead people to pay more for the same goods. It shifts their spending toward things that require bigger upfront payments and longer-term commitments, and that are riskier.

I was listening to an interview with an executive from wind-power company on the Odd Lots podcast the other day. “We like to say that our fuel is free,” he said. “But really, our fuel is the cost of capital.” The interest rate matters more for wind power than for gas or coal, because the costs must be paid almost entirely up front, as opposed to when the power is produced.

When costs and returns are close together, credit is less important.

In settings where ongoing relationships exist, money is less important as a coordinating mechanism. Markets are for arms-length transactions between strangers.

Minsky’s version of the story emphasizes that we have to think about money in terms of two prices, current production and long-lived assets. Long-lived assets must be financed – acquiring one typically requires committing to a series of future payments . So their price is sensitive to the availability of money. An increase in the money supply — contra Hume, contra Meyer — does not raise all prices in unison. It disproportionately raises the price of long-lived assets, encouraging production of them. And it is long-lived assets that are the basis of modern industrial production.

The relative value of capital goods, and the choice between more and less capital-intensive production techniques, depends on the rate of interest. Capital goods – and the corporations and other long-lived entities that make use of them – are by their nature illiquid. The willingness of wealth owners to commit their wealth to these forms depends, therefore, on the availability of liquidity. We cannot analyze conditions of production in non-monetary terms first and then afterward add money and interest to the story. Conditions of production themselves depend fundamentally on the network of money payments and commitments that structure them, and how flexible that network is.

Taking money seriously requires us to reconceptualize the real economy.

The idea of the interest rate as the price of saving assumes, as I mentioned before, that output already exists to be either consumed or saved. Similarly, the idea of interest as an intertemporal price — the price of time, as the ECB has it — implies that future output is already determined, at least probabilistically. We can’t trade off current consumption against future consumption unless future consumption already exists for us to trade.

Wicksell, who did as much as anyone to create the natural-rate framework of today’s central banks, captured this aspect of it perfectly when he compared economic growth to wine barrels aging in the cellar. The wine is already there. The problem is just deciding when to open the barrels — you would like to have some wine now, but you know the wine will get better if you wait.

In policy contexts, this corresponds to the idea of a level of potential output (or full employment) that is given from the supply side. The productive capacity of the economy is already there; the most that money, or demand, can accomplish is managing aggregate spending so that production stays close to that capacity.

This is the perspective from which someone like Lawrence Meyer, or Paul Krugman for that matter, says that monetary policy can only affect prices in the long run. They assume that potential output is already given.

But one of the big lessons we have learned from the past 15 years of macroeconomic instability is that the economy’s productive potential is much more unstable, and much less certain, than economists used to think. We’ve seen that the labor force grows and shrinks in response to labor market conditions. We’ve seen that investment and productivity growth are highly sensitive to demand. If a lack of spending causes output to fall short of potential today, potential will be lower tomorrow. And if the economy runs hot for a while, potential output will rise.

We can see the same thing at the level of individual industries. One of the most striking, and encouraging developments of recent years has been the rapid fall in costs for renewable energy generation. It is clear that this fall in costs is the result, as much as the cause, of the rapid growth in spending on these technologies. And that in turn is largely due to successful policies to direct credit to those areas.

A perspective that sees money as epiphenomenal to the “real economy” of production would have ruled out that possibility.

This sort of learning by doing is ubiquitous in the real world. Economists prefer to assume decreasing returns only because that’s an easy way to get a unique market equilibrium.

This is one area where formal economics and everyday intuition diverge sharply. Ask someone whether they think that buying more or something, or making more of something, will cause the unit price to go up or down. If you reserve a block of hotel rooms, will the rooms be cheaper or more expensive than if you reserve just one? And then think about what this implies about the slope of the supply curve.

There’s a wonderful story by the great German-Mexican writer B. Traven called “Assembly Line.” The story gets its subversive humor from a confrontation between an American businessman, who takes it for granted that costs should decline with output, and a village artisan who insists on actually behaving like the textbook producer in a world of decreasing returns.

In modern economies, if not in the village, the businessman’s intuition is correct. Increasing returns are very much the normal case. This means that multiple equilibria and path dependence are the rule. And — bringing us back to money — that means that what can be produced, and at what cost, is a function of how spending has been directed in the past.

Taking money seriously, as its own autonomous social domain, means recognizing that social and material reality is not like money. We cannot think of it in terms of a set of existing objects to be allocated, between uses or over time. Production is not a quantity of capital and a quantity of labor being combined in a production function. It is organized human activity, coordinated in a variety of ways, aimed at open-ended transformation of the world whose results are not knowable in advance.

On a negative side, this means we should be skeptical about any economic concept described as “natural” or “real”. These are very often an attempt to smuggle in a vision of a non monetary economy fundamentally different from our own, or to disguise a normative claim as a positive one, or both.

For example, we should be cautious about “real” interest rates. This term is ubiquitous, but it implicitly suggests that the underlying transaction is a swap of goods today for goods tomorrow, which just happens to take monetary form. But in fact it’s a swap of IOUs — one set of money payments for another. There’s no reason that the relative price of money versus commodities would come into it.

And in fact, when we look historically, before the era of inflation-targeting central banks there was no particular relationship between inflation and interest rates.

We should also be skeptical of the idea of real GDP, or the price level. That’s another big theme of the book, but it’s beyond the scope of today’s talk.

On the positive side, this perspective is, I think, essential preparation to explore when and in what contexts finance matters for production. Obviously, in reality, most production coordinated in non-market ways, both within firms — which are planned economies internally — and through various forms of economy-wide planning. But there are also cases where the distribution of monetary claims through the financial system is very important. Understanding which specific activities are credit-constrained, and in what circumstances, seems like an important research area to me, especially in the context of climate change.

Let me mention one more direction in which I think this perspective points us.

As I suggested, the idea of the interest rate as the price of time, and the larger real-exchange vision of which it is part, treats money flows and aggregates as stand-ins for an underlying nonmonetary real economy. People who take this view tend not be especially concerned with exactly how the monetary values are constructed. Which rate, out of the complex of interest rates, is “the” interest rate? Which f the various possible inflation rates, and over what period, do we subtract to get the “real” interest rate? What payments exactly are included in GDP, and what do we do if that changes, or if it’s different in different countries?

If we think of the monetary values as just proxies for some underlying “real” value, the answers to these questions don’t really matter.

I was reading a paper recently that used the intensity of nighttime illumination across the Earth’s surface as an alternative measure of real output. It’s an interesting exercise. But obviously, if that’s the spirit you are approaching GDP in, you don’t worry about how the value of financial services is calculated, or on what basis we are imputing the services of owner-occupied housing. The number produced by the BEA is just another proxy for the true value of real output, that you can approximate in all kinds of other ways.

On the other hand, if you think that the money values are what is actually real — if you don’t think they are proxies for any underlying material quantity — then you have to be very concerned with the way they are calculated. If the interest rate really does mean the payments on a loan contract, and not some hypothetical exchange rate between the past and the future, then you have to be clear about which loan contract you have in mind.

Along the same lines, most economists treat the object of inquiry as the underlying causal relationships in the economy, those “fundamental structural characteristics” that are supposed to be stable over time. Recall that the natural rate of interest is explicitly defined with respect to a long run equilibrium where all macroeconomic variables are constant, or growing at a constant rate. If that’s how you think of what you are doing, then specific historical developments are interesting at most as case studies, or as motivations for the real work, which consists of timeless formal models.

But if we take money seriously, then we don’t need to postulate this kind of underlying deep structure. If we don’t think of interest in terms of a tradeoff between the present and the future, then we don’t need to think of future income and output as being in any sense already determined. And if money matters for the activity of production, both as financing for investment and as demand, then there is no reason to think the actual evolution of the economy can be understood in terms of a long-run trend determined by fundamentals.

The only sensible object of inquiry in this case is particular events that have happened, or might happen.

Approaching our subject this way means working in terms of the variables we actually observe and measure. If we study GDP, it is GDP as the national accountants actually define it and measure it, not “output” in the abstract. These variables are generally monetary.

It means focusing on explanations for specific historical developments, rather than modeling the behavior of “the economy” in the abstract.

It means elevating descriptive work over the kinds of causal questions that economists usually ask. Which means broadening our empirical toolkit away from econometrics.

These methodological suggestions might seem far removed from alternative accounts of the interest rate. But as Arjun and I have worked on this book, we’ve become convinced that the two are closely related. Taking money seriously, and rejecting conventional ideas of the real economy, have far-reaching implications for how we do economics.

Recognizing that money is its own domain allows us to see productive activity as an open-ended historical process, rather than a static problem of allocation. By focusing on money, we can get a clearer view of the non-monetary world — and, hopefully, be in a better position to change it.

View Details

(I write a monthlyish opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in June. My previous pieces are here.)

Once upon a time, the promise of globalization seemed clear. In an economically integrated world, poor countries could follow the same path of development that the rich countries had in the past, leading to an equalization of global living standards. For mid-20th century liberals, restoring trade meant bringing the New Deal’s egalitarian model of economic development to a global stage. As Nebraska Senator Kenneth Wherry memorably put it, “With God’s help, we will lift Shanghai up and up, ever up, until it is just like Kansas City.”1

For better and for worse, globalization has failed in its promise to deliver a planet of Kansas Cities. But Shanghai specifically is one place that it’s come through, and then some. As we debate the Biden administration’s new tariffs, let’s not lose sight of the fact that China’s industrialization is a very good thing for humanity. Indeed, it is the outstanding case of globalization’s promises being fulfilled.

For most of modern history, the gap between the global rich and global poor has only gotten wider. Though there are many tricky issues of measurement, most economic historians would agree with Branko Milanovic — perhaps the world’s foremost authority on the global distribution of income — that global inequality rose steadily for perhaps 200 years until 1980 or so. Since then, and particularly since 2000, there has been a sharp reversal of this trend; according to Milanovic, global income is probably more equally distributed today than at any time since the 19th century.

The reason for this remarkable turn toward equality? China.

According to Milanovic, the rise of China was almost singlehandedly responsible for the reduction in global inequality over the past 30 years. Thanks to its meteoric growth, the gap between the world’s rich and poor has closed substantially for the first time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Almost all the fall in global inequality in recent decades is attributable to China. Source.Convergence to rich-country living standards is extremely rare historically. Prior to China, the only major examples in modern times were Taiwan and South Korea. Much more typical are countries like the Philippines or Brazil. Sixty years ago, according to the World Bank, their per-capita incomes were 6 and 14 percent that of the USA, respectively. Today, they are … 6 and 14 percent of the USA. There were ups and downs along the way, but overall no convergence at all. Other poor countries have actually lost ground.

Or as Paul Johnson summarizes the empirical growth literature: “Poor countries, unless something changes, are destined to remain poor.”

China is not just an outlier for how rapidly it has grown, but for how widely the benefits of growth have been shared. One recent study of Chinese income distribution over 1988-2018 found that while growth was fastest for the top, even the bottom 5 percent of wage earners saw real income grow by almost 5 percent annually. This is faster than any group in the US over that period. Milanovic comes to an even stronger conclusion: The bottom half of the Chinese income distribution saw faster growth than those at the top.

Even studies that find rising inequality in China, find that even the lowest income groups there had faster income growth than any group in the US.Thomas Piketty finds a similar pattern. “The key difference between China and the United States,” he writes, “is that in China the bottom 50 percent also benefited enormously from growth: the average income of the bottom 50 percent [increased] by more than five times in real terms between 1978 and 2015… In contrast, bottom 50 percent income growth in the US has been negative.”2

It’s clear, too, that Chinese growth has translated into rising living standards in more tangible ways. In 1970, Chinese life expectancy was lower than Brazil or the Philippines; today it is almost ten years longer. As the sociologist Wang Feng observes in his new book China’s Age of Abundance, Chinese children entering school in 2002 were 5-6 centimeters taller than they had been just a decade earlier – testimony to vast improvements in diet and living conditions. These improvements were greatest in poor rural areas.

How has China delivered on the promises of globalization, where so many other countries have failed? One possible answer is that it has simply followed the path blazed by earlier industrializers, starting with the United States. Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufacturers laid out the playbook: protection for infant industries, public investment in infrastructure, adoption of foreign technology, cheap but strategically directed credit. The Hamiltonian formula was largely forgotten in the United States once it had done its work, but it was picked up in turn by Germany, Japan, Korea and now by China. As the Korean development economist Ha-Joon Chang puts it, insistence that developing countries immediately embrace free trade and financial openness amounts to “kicking away the ladder” that the rich countries previously climbed.

Today, of course, the US is rediscovering these old ideas about industrial policy. There’s nothing wrong with that. But there is something odd and unseemly about describing the same policies as devious manipulation when China uses them.

When John Podesta announced the formation of the administration’s White House Climate and Trade Task Force last month, he tried to draw a sharp line between industrial policy in the United States and industrial policy in China. We use “transparent, well-structured, targeted incentives,” he said, while they have “non-market policies … that have distorted the market.” Unlike us, they are trying to “dominate the global market,” and “creating an oversupply of green energy products.” Yet at the same time, the administration boasts that the incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act will double the growth of clean energy investment so that “US manufacturers can lead the global market in clean energy.”

No doubt if you squint hard enough, you can make out a distinction between changing market outcomes and distorting them, or between leading the global market and dominating it. But it certainly seems like the difference is when we do it versus when they do.

The claim that China is creating a global “overcapacity” in green energy markets — often trotted out by tariff supporters — is particularly puzzling. Obviously, to the extent that there is global overcapacity in these markets, US investment contributes exactly as much as Chinese does — that is what the word “global” means.

More importantly, as many critics have pointed out, the world needs vastly more investment in all kinds of green technologies. It’s hard to imagine any context outside of the US-China trade war where Biden supporters would argue that the world is building too many solar panels and wind turbines, or converting too quickly to electric vehicles.

Not so long ago, the dominant view on the economics of climate change was that the problem was the “free rider” dynamic — the whole world benefits from reduced emissions, while the costs are borne only by the countries that reduce them. In the absence of a global government that can impose decarbonization on the whole world, the pursuit of national advantage through green investment may be the only way the free rider problem gets solved.

As development economist Dani Rodrik puts it: “Green industrial policies are doubly beneficial – both to stimulate the necessary technological learning and to substitute for carbon pricing. Western commentators who trot out scare words like ‘excess capacity,’ ‘subsidy wars,’ and ‘China trade shock 2.0’ have gotten things exactly backwards. A glut in renewables and green products is precisely what the climate doctor ordered.”3

The Biden administration is not wrong to want to support US manufacturers. The best answer to subsidies for green industries in China is subsidies for green industries in the US (and in Europe and elsewhere). In a world that is desperately struggling to head off catastrophic climate change, a subsidy race could harness international rivalry as a part of the solution. But that requires that competition be channeled in a positive-sum way.

Unfortunately, the Biden Administration seems to be choosing the path of confrontation instead. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration dealt with the wave of imported cars that threatened US automakers through a voluntary agreement with Japan to moderately reduce auto exports to the US, while encouraging investment here by Japanese automakers. Unlike the pragmatists around Reagan, the Biden team seems more inclined to belligerence. There’s no sign they even tried to negotiate an agreement, instead choosing unilateral action and framing China as an enemy rather than a potential partner.

Tellingly, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is described (in Alexander Ward’s new book The Internationalists) as arguing that the US can make serious climate deals with other countries while “boxing China out,” a view that seems to have won out over the more conciliatory position of advisors like John Kerry. If Sullivan’s position is being described accurately, it’s hard to exaggerate how unrealistic and irresponsible it is. The US and China are by far the world’s two largest economies, not to mention its preeminent military powers. If their governments cannot find a way to cooperate, there is no hope of a serious solution to climate change, or to other urgent global problems.

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with an American administration putting the needs of the United States first. And if it’s a mistake to treat China as an enemy, it would also be wrong to set them up as an ideal. One could make a long list of ways in which the current government of China falls short of liberal and democratic ideals. Still, it’s clear that China is being punished for its economic success rather than its political failures. Tellingly, the same month that the tariffs on China were announced, the Biden administration indicated that it would resume sales of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia, whose government has nothing to learn from China about political repression or violence against dissidents.

The policy issues around tariffs are complicated. But let’s not lose sight of the big picture. The fundamental premises of globalization remain compelling today, even if attempts to realize them have often failed. First, no country is an island – today, especially, our most urgent problems can only be solved with cooperation across borders. Second, economic growth is not a zero sum game – there is not some fixed quantity of resources, or markets, available, so that one country’s gain must be another’s loss. And third, democracy spreads best via example and the free movement of ideas and people, not through conquest or coercion. We don’t have to endorse the whole classical case for free trade to agree that its proponents were right in some important ways.

China’s growth has been the clearest case yet of globalization’s promise that international trade can speed the convergence of poor countries with rich ones. The opportunity is still there for its broader promises to be fulfilled as well. But for that to happen, we in the United States must first accept that if the rest of the world catches up with us, that is something to be welcomed rather than feared.

View Details

Classes finished up last week. One of the things I was teaching this semester was undergraduate economic history, which I hadn’t done in some years. (Perhaps I’ll have more to post on the class later.)

Our main books this time were Beckert’s Empire of Cotton, which I’ve used several times in this class; and Jonathan Levy’s Ages of American Capitalism and Joshua Freeman’s Behemoth, neither of which I had read before.

Behemoth is a history of the factory; the final chapter is on present-day factories in Vietnam and China, which are probably the largest factories that have ever existed. It’s a fascinating account, with a lot of details I hadn’t heard before. I was astonished to learn, for example, that all the iPads are made at a single facility in Chengdu.

A more interesting question is why these factories are so big. The answer, Freeman stresses, is not any sort of technical advantage. These giant factories in general are organized with small groups of workers doing the same tasks in parallel, independently of each other; there’s nothing like the division of labor that you have on an auto assembly line. Rather than economies of scale, he argues, the main reason production is concentrated in a few giant factories is to allow them to be more responsive to the changing demands of their clients, the Western companies whose subcontractors they are. As with giant factories through history, the impetus for concentrating workers in one facility is about centralizing authority and not just technical efficience, as people like Stephen Marglin and David Noble (or Levy in his chapter on River Rouge) have emphasized.

A question I posed to the class is: Is there any connection between China’s industrial success today and their earlier revolution? Is the fact that China had one of the 20th century’s greatest political revolutions connected to the fact that it is one of the 21st century’s greatest industrial-policy success stories? There was a bit of debate on this – some people pointed to the uniquely egalitarian organization of earlier Chinese factories, where workers discussed how to organize production, and even managers were required to spend time doing routine manual work. But others noted, correctly, that Foxconn isn’t anything like that – there are bosses who give orders just like everywhere else.

One way to think about whether, or how, the revolution mattered, I suggested, is to think about the counterfactual. We could look back at China 100 years ago – backward, riven by civil war, subjugated by Europe and Japan, desperately poor – and think that only some kind of radical political project could have rebuilt the country. Or in a longer view, we could say that for most of recorded history China has been one of the most advanced, prosperous and politically stable regions on Earth, so it’s hardly surprising that it would be returning to something like that position. Which of those seems more reasonable?

After they’d gone back and forth on that for a while, I asked them if they knew what major battle we’d just passed the 70th anniversary of. No one knew; I wouldn’t have expected them to. It’s Dien Bien Phu, I said. The decisive defeat of the French by the Viet Minh, the moment when Europeans were shocked to discover that they could be defeated by a backward, non-Western people in open battle. It was a major step in Vietnam’s road to full independence, and to the end of colonial empires all over the world – one of the most important battles of the 20th century. One of the biggest victories, one might say, for the liberation of humanity. And yet now Vietnam is manufacturing shoes for Nike just like everyone else.

So, did it matter? In the long run, do these titanic struggles between classes and nations make any difference? Do they really change how production is organized, and for what, and by whom?

I ended the class there. But one might add that how you feel about whether Dien Bien Phu is worth commemorating is probably as good a marker as any of the boundaries of radical politics. Does progress come through struggle — sometimes violent, always disruptive against the established order? (And in these struggles, has America and “the West” been on the side of human liberation, or the other side?) Or does progress, if it happens, happen incrementally, on its own, regardless of who wins the battles?

View Details

So, did it matter? In the long run, do these titanic struggles between classes and nations make any difference? Do they really change how production is organized, and for what, and by whom?

I ended the class there. But one might add that how you feel about whether Dien Bien Phu is worth commemorating is probably as good a marker as any of the boundaries of radical politics. Does progress come through struggle — sometimes violent, always disruptive against the established order? And in these struggles, has America and “the West” been on the side of human liberation, or the other side?

View Details

(Text of a talk I delivered at the Neubauer Institute in Chicago on April 5, 2024.)

My goal in this talk is to convince you that there is a Keynesian vision that is much more radical and far-reaching then our familiar idea of Keynesian economics.

I say “a” Keynesian vision. Keynes was an outstanding example of his rival Hayek’s dictum that no one can be a great economist who is only an economist. He was a great economist, and he was many other things as well. He was always engaged with the urgent problems of his day; his arguments were intended to address specific problems and persuade specific audiences, and they are not always easy to reconcile. So I can’t claim to speak for the authentic Keynes. But I think I speak for an authentic Keynes. In particular, the argument I want to make here is strongly influenced by the work of Jim Crotty, whose efforts to synthesize the visions of Keynes and of Marx were formative for me, as for many people who have passed through the economics department at the University of Massachusetts.

Where should we begin? Why not at the beginning of the Keynesian revolution? According to Luigi Passinetti, this has a very specific date: October 1932. That is when Keynes returned to King’s College in Cambridge for the Michaelmas term to deliver, not his old lectures on “The Pure Theory of Money,” but a new set of lectures on “The Monetary Theory of Production”. In an article of the same title written around the same time, he explained that the difference between the economic orthodoxy of the “the theory which I desiderate” was fundamentally the difference between a vision of the economy in terms of what he called “real exchange” and of monetary production. The lack of such a theory, he argued, was “the main reason why the problem of crises remains unsolved.”

The obvious distinction between these two visions is whether money can be regarded as neutral; and more particularly whether the interest rate can be thought of — as the textbook of economics of our times as well as his insist — as the price of goods today versus goods tomorrow, or whether we must think of it as, in some sense, the price of money.

But there is a deeper distinction between these two visions that I think Keynes also had in mind. On the ones side, we may think of economic life fundamentally in terms of objects — material things that can be owned and exchanged, which exist prior to their entry into economic life, and which have a value — reflecting the difficulty of acquiring them and their capacity to meet human needs. This value merely happens to be represented in terms of money. On the other side, we may think of economic life fundamentally in terms of collective human activity, an organized, open-ended process of transforming the world, a process in which the pursuit of money plays a central organizing role.

Lionel Robbins, also writing in 1932, gave perhaps the most influential summary of the orthodox view when he wrote that economics is the study of the allocation of scarce means among alternative uses. For Keynes, by contrast, the central problem is not scarcity, but coordination. And what distinguishes the sphere of the economy from other areas of life is that coordination here happens largely through money payments and commitments.

From Robbins’ real-exchange perspective, the “means” available to us at any time are given, it is only a question of what is the best use for them. For Keynes, the starting point is coordinated human activity. In a world where coordination failures are ubiquitous, there is no reason to think — as there would be if the problem were scarcity — that satisfying some human need requires withdrawing resources from meeting some other equally urgent need. (In 1932, obviously, this question was of more than academic interest.) What kinds of productive activity are possible depends, in particular, on the terms on which money is available to finance it and the ease with which its results can be converted back into money. It is for this reason, as Keynes great American successor Hyman Minsky emphasized, that money can never be neutral.

If the monetary production view rejects the idea that what is scarce is material means, it also rejects the idea that economic life is organized around the meeting of human needs. The pursuit of money for its own sake is the organizing principle of private production. On this point, Keynes recognized his affinity with Karl Marx. Marx, he wrote, “pointed out that the nature of production in the actual world is not, as economists seem often to suppose, a case of C-M-C’, i. e., of exchanging commodity (or effort). That may be the standpoint of the private consumer. But it is not the attitude of business, which is the case of M-C-M’, i. e., of parting with money for commodity (or effort) in order to obtain more money.”

Ignoring or downplaying money, as economic theory has historically done, requires imagining the “real” world is money-like. Conversely, recognizing money as a distinct social institution requires a reconception of the social world outside of money. We must ask both how monetary claims and values evolve independently of the real activity of production, and how money builds on, reinforces or undermines other forms of authority and coordination. And we must ask how the institutions of money and credit both enable and constrain our collective decision making. All these questions are unavoidably political.

For Keynes, modern capitalism is best understood through the tension between the distinct logics of money and of production. For the orthodox economics both of Keynes’s day and our own, there is no such tension. The model is one of “real exchange” in which a given endowment of goods and a given set of preferences yielded a vector of relative prices. Money prices represent the value that goods already have, and money itself merely facilitates the process of exchange without altering it in any important way.

Keynes of course was not the first to insist on a deeper role for money. Along with Marx, there is a long counter tradition that approaches economic problems as an open ended process of transformation rather than the allocation of existing goods, and that recognizes the critical role of money in organizing this process. These include the “Army of brave heretics and cranks” Keynes acknowledges as his predecessors.

One of the pioneers in this army was John Law. Law is remembered today mainly for the failure of his fiat currency proposals (and their contribution to the fiscal troubles of French monarchy), an object lesson for over-ambitious monetary reformers. But this is unfair. Unlike most other early monetary reformer, Law had a clearly articulated theory behind his proposals. Schumpeter goes so far as to put him “in the front rank of monetary theorists of all times.”

Law’s great insight was that money is not simply a commodity whose value comes from its non-monetary uses. Facilitating exchange is itself a very important function, which makes whatever is used for that purpose valuable even if it has no other use.

“Money,” he wrote, “is not the Value for which goods are exchanged, but the Value by which goods are exchanged.” The fact that money’s value comes from its use in facilitating exchange, and not merely from the labor and other real resources embodied in it, means that a scarcity of money need not reflect any physical scarcity. In fact, the scarcity of money itself may be what limits the availability of labor: “’tis with little success Laws are made, for Employing the Poor or Idle in Countries where Money is scarce.”

Law here is imagining money as a way of organizing and mobilizing production.

If the capacity to pay for things — and make commitments to future payments — is valuable, then the community could be made better off by providing more of it. Law’s schemes to set up credit-money issuing banks – in Scotland before the more famous efforts in France – were explicitly presented as programs for economic development.

Underlying this project is a recognition that is central to the monetary production view; the organization of production through exchange is not a timeless fact of human existence, but something that requires specific institutional underpinning — which someone has to provide. Like Alexander Hamilton’s similar but more successful interventions a half century later, Law envisioned the provision of abundant liquidity as part of a broader project of promoting commerce and industry.

This vision was taken up a bit later by Thornton and the anti-bullionists during the debates over suspension of gold convertibility during and after the Napoleonic Wars. A subsequent version was put forward by the mid-19th century Banking School and its outstanding figure, Thomas Tooke — who was incidentally the only contemporary bourgeois economist who Karl Marx seems to have admired — and by thinkers like Walter Bagehot, who built their theory on first hand experience of business and finance.

A number of lines divide these proto-Keynesian writers from the real-exchange orthodoxy.

To begin with, there is a basic difference in how they think of money – rather than a commodity or token that exists in a definite quantity, they see it as a form of record-keeping, whose material form is irrelevant. In other words credit, the recording of promises, is fundamental; currency as just one particular form of it.

Second, is the question of whether there is some simple or “natural” rule that governs the behavior of monetary or credit, or whether they require active management. In the early debates, these rules were supposed to be gold convertibility or the real bills doctrine; a similar intellectual function was performed by Milton Friedman’s proposed money-supply growth rule in the 20th century or the Taylor Rule that is supposed to govern monetary policy today. On the other side, for these thinkers, “money cannot manage itself,” in Bagehot’s famous phrase.

Third, there is the basic question of whether money is a passive reflection of an already existing real economy, or whether production itself depends on and is organized by money and credit. In other words, the conception of money is inseparable from how the non-monetary economy is imagined. In the real-exchange vision, there is a definite quantity of commodities already existing or potentially producible, which money at best helps to allocate. In the monetary production view, goods only come into existence as they are financed and paid for, and the productive capacity of the economy comes into being through an open-ended process of active development.

It’s worth quoting Bagehot’s Lombard Street for an example:

The ready availability of credit for English businesses, he writes,

gives us an enormous advantage in competition with less advanced countries — less advanced, that is, in this particular respect of credit. In a new trade English capital is instantly at the disposal of persons capable of understanding the new opportunities… In countries where there is little money to lend, … enterprising traders are long kept back, because they cannot borrow the capital without which skill and knowledge are useless. … The Suez Canal is a curious case of this … That London and Liverpool should be centres of East India commerce is a geographic anomaly … The main use of the Canal has been by the English not because England has rich people … but because she possesses an unequalled fund of floating money.

The capacity for reorganization is what matters, in other words. The economic problem is not a scarcity of material wealth, but of institutions that can rapidly redirect it to new opportunities. For Bagehot as for Keynes, the binding constraint is coordination.

It is worth highlighting that there is something quietly radical in Bagehot’s argument here. The textbooks tell us that international trade is basically a problem of the optimal allocation of labor, land and other material resources, according to countries’ inherent capacities for production. But here it’s being claimed is not any preexisting comparative advantage in production, but rather the development of productive capacities via money; financial power allows a country to reorganize the international division of labor to its own advantage.

Thinkers like Bagehot, Thornton or Hamilton certainly had some success on policy level. For the development of central banking, in particular, these early expressions of of monetary production view played an important role. But it was Keynes who developed these insights into a systematic theory of monetary production.

Let’s talk first about the monetary side of this dyad.

The nature and management of money were central to Keynes’ interventions, as a list of his major works suggests – from Indian Currency Questions to the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. The title of the latter expresses not just a list of topics but a logical sequence: employment is determined by the interest rate, which is determined by the availability of money.

One important element Keynes adds to the earlier tradition is the framing of the services provided by money as liquidity. This reflects the ability to make payments and satisfy obligations of all kinds, not just the exchange of goods focused on by Law and his successors. It also foregrounds the need for flexibility in the face of an unknown future.

The flip side of liquidity — less emphasized in his own writings but very much by post Keynesians like Hyman Minsky — is money’s capacity to facilitate trust and promises. Money as a social technology provides offers flexibility and commitment.

The fact that bank deposit — an IOU — will be accepted by anyone is very desirable for wealth owner who wants to keep their options open. But also makes bank very useful to people who want to make lasting commitments to each other, but who don’t have a direct relationship that would allow them to trust each other. Banks’ fundamental role is “acceptance,” as Minsky put it – standing in as a trusted third party to make all kinds of promises possible.

Drawing on his experience as a practitioner, Keynes also developed the idea of self-confirming expectations in financial markets. Someone buying an asset to sell in the near term is not interested in its “fundamental” value – the long-run flow of income it will generate – but in what other market participants will think is its value tomorrow. Where such short-term speculation dominates, asset prices take on an arbitrary, self-referential character. This idea is important for our purposes not just because it underpins Keynes’ critique of the “insane gambling casinos” of modern financial markets, but because it helps explain the autonomy of financial values. Prices set in asset markets — including, importantly, the interest rate — are not guide to any real tradeoffs or long term possibilities.

Both liquidity and self-confirming conventions are tied to a distinctive epistemology , which emphasizes the fundamental unknowability of the future. In Keynes’ famous statement in chapter 12 of the General Theory,

By ‘uncertain’ knowledge … I do not mean merely to distinguish what is known for certain from what is only probable. The sense in which I am using the term is that in which the prospect of a European war is uncertain, … About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know!

Turning to the production side, taking the he monetary-production view means that neither the routine operation of capitalist economies nor the choices facing us in response to challenges like climate change should be seen in terms of scarcity and allocation.

The real-exchange paradigm sees production as non-monetary process of transforming inputs into outputs through a physical process we can represent as a production function. We know if we add this much labor and this much “capital” at one end, we’ll get this many consumption goods at the other end; the job of market price is to tell us if it is worth it. Thinking instead in terms of monetary production does not just mean adding money as another input. It means reconceiving the production process. The fundamental problem is now coordination — capacity for organized cooperation.

I’ve said that before. Let me now spell out a little more what I mean by it.

To say that production is an open ended collective activity of transforming the world, means that its possibilities are not knowable in advance. We don’t know how much labor and machinery and raw materials it will take to produce something new — or something old on an increased scale — until we actually do it. Nor do we know how much labor is potentially available until there’s demand for it.

We see this clearly in a phenomenon that has gotten increasing attention in macroeconomic discussions lately — what economists call hysteresis. In textbook theories, how much the economy is capable of producing — potential output — does not depend on how much we actually do produce There are only so many resources available, whether we are using them or not. But in reality, it’s clear that both the labor force and measured productivity growth are highly sensitive to current demand. Rather than a fixed number of people available to work, so that employing more in one area requires fewer working somewhere else, there is an immense, in practice effectively unlimited fringe of people who can be drawn into the labor force when demand for labor is strong. Technology, similarly, is not given from outside the economy, but develops in response to demand and wage growth and via investment.

All this is of course true when we are asking questions like, how much of our energy needs could in principle be met by renewable sources in 20 years? In that case, it is abundantly clear that the steep fall in the cost of wind and solar power we’ve already seen is the result of increased demand for them. It’s not something that would have happened on its own. But increasing returns and learning by doing are ubiquitous in real economies. In large buildings, for instance, the cost of constructing later floors is typically lower than the cost of constructing earlier ones.

In a world where hysteresis and increasing returns are important, it makes no sense to think in terms of a fixed amount of capacity, where producing more of one thing requires producing correspondingly less of something else. What is scarce, is the capacity to rapidly redirect resources from one use to a different one.

A second important dimension of the Keynesian perspective on production is that it is not simply a matter of combining material inputs, but happens within discrete social organisms. We have to take the firm seriously as ongoing community embodying multiple social logics. Firms combine the structured cooperation needed for production; a nexus of payments and incomes; an internal hierarchy of command and obedience; and a polis or imagined community for those employed by or otherwise associated with it.

While firms do engage in market transactions and exist — in principle at least — in order to generate profits, this is not how they operate internally. Within the firm, the organization of production is consciously planned and hierarchical. Wealth owners, meanwhile, do not normally own capital goods as such, but rather financial claims against these social organisms.

When we combine this understanding of production with Keynesian insights into money and finance , we are likely to conclude, as Keynes himself did, that an economy that depends on long-lived capital goods (and long-lived business enterprises, and scientific knowledge) cannot be effectively organized through the pursuit of private profit.

First, because the profits from these kinds of activities depend on developments well off in the future that cannot cannot be known with any confidence.

Second, because these choices are irreversible — capital goods specialized and embedded in particular production processes and enterprises. (Another aspect of this, not emphasized by Keynes, but one which wealth owners are very conscious of, is that wealth embodied in long-lived means of production can lose its character as wealth. It may effectively belong to the managers of the firm, or even the workers, rather than to its notional owners.) Finally, uncertainty about the future amplifies and exacerbates the problems of coordination.

The reason that many potentially valuable activities are not undertaken is not that they would require real resources that people would prefer to use otherwise. It is that people don’t feel they can risk the irreversible commitment those activities would entail. Many long-lived projects that would easily pay for themselves in both private and social terms are not carried out, because an insufficient capacity for trustworthy promises means that large-scale cooperation appears too risky to those in control of the required resources, who prefer to keep their their options open.

Or as Keynes put it: “That the world after several millennia of steady individual saving, is so poor as it is in accumulated capital-assets, is to be explained neither by the improvident propensities of mankind, nor even by the destruction of war, but by the high liquidity- premiums formerly attaching to the ownership of land and now attaching to money.”

The problem, Keynes is saying, is that wealth owners prefer land and money to claims on concrete productive processes. Monetary production means production organized by money and in pursuit of money. But also identifies conflict between production and money.

We see this clearly in a development context, where — as Joe Studwell has recently emphasized — the essential first step is to break the power of landlords and close off the option of capital flight so that private wealth owners have no option but to hold their wealth as claims on society in the form of productive enterprises.

The whole history of the corporation is filled with conflicts between the enterprise’s commitment to its own ongoing production process, and the desire of shareholders and other financial claimants to hold their wealth in more liquid, monetary form. The expansion or even continued existence of the corporation as an enterprise requires constantly fending off the demands of the rentiers to get “their” money back, now. The “complaining participants” of the Dutch East India Company in the 1620s, sound, in this respect, strikingly similar to shareholder activists of the 1980s.

Where privately-owned capital has worked tolerably well — as Keynes thought it had in the period before WWI, at least in the UK — it was because private owners were not exclusively or even mainly focused on monetary profit.

“Enterprise,” he writes, “only pretends to itself to be mainly actuated by the statements in its own prospectus, however candid and sincere. Only a little more than an expedition to the South Pole, is it based on an exact calculation of benefits to come. Thus if the animal spirits are dimmed and the spontaneous optimism falters, leaving us to depend on nothing but a mathematical expectation, enterprise will fade and die.”

(It’s a curious thing that this iconic Keynesian term is almost always used today to describe financial markets, even though it occurs in a discussion of real investment. This is perhaps symptomatic of the loss of the production term of the monetary production theory from most later interpretations of Keynes.)

The idea that investment in prewar capitalism had depended as much on historically specific social and cultural factors rather than simply opportunities for profit was one that Keynes often returned to. “If the steam locomotive were to be discovered today,” he wrote elsewhere, “I much doubt if unaided private enterprise would build railways in England.”

We can find examples of the same thing in the US. The Boston Associates who pioneered textile factories in New England seem to have been more preserving the dominant social position of their interlinked families as in maximizing monetary returns. Schumpeter suggested that the possibility of establishing such “industrial dynasties” was essential to the growth of capitalism. Historians like Jonathan Levy give us vivid portraits of early American industrialists Carnegie and Ford as outstanding examples of animal spirits — both sought to increase the scale and efficiency of production as a goal in itself, as opposed to profit maximization.

In Keynes’ view, this was the only basis on which sustained private investment could work. A systematic application of financial criteria to private enterprise resulted in level of investment that was dangerously unstable and almost always too low. On the other hand — as emphasized by Kalecki but recognized by Keynes as well — a dependence on wealth owners pursuit of investment for its own sake required a particular social and political climate — one that might be quite inimical to other important social goals, if it could be maintained at all.

The solution therefore was to separate investment decisions from the pursuit of private wealth. The call for the “more or less comprehensive socialization of investment” at the end of The General Theory, is not the throwaway line that it appears as in that book, but reflects a program that Keynes had struggled with and developed since the 1920s. The Keynesian political program was not one of countercyclical fiscal policy, which he was always skeptical of. Rather it envisioned a number of more or less autonomous quasi-public bodies – housing authorities, hospitals, universities and so on – providing for the production of their own specific social goods, in an institutional environment that allowed them to ignore considerations of profitability.

The idea that large scale investment must be taken out of private hands was at the heart of Keynes’ positive program.

At this point, some of you may be thinking that that I have said two contradictory things. First, I said that a central insight of the Keynesian vision is that money and credit are essential tools for the organization of production. And then, I said that there is irreconcilable conflict between the logic of money and the needs of production. If you are thinking that, you are right. I am saying both of these things.

The way to reconcile this contradiction is to see these as two distinct moments in a single historical process.

We can think of money as a social solvent. It breaks up earlier forms of coordination, erases any connection between people.As the Bank of International Settlements economist Claudio Borio puts it: “a well functioning monetary system …is a highly efficient means of ‘erasing’ any relationship between transacting parties.” A lawyers’ term for this feature of money is privity, which “cuts off adverse claims, and abolishes the .. history of the account. If my bank balance is $100 … there is nothing else to know about the balance.”

In his book Debt, David Graeber illustrates this same social-solvent quality of money with the striking story of naturalist Ernest Thompson Seton, who was sent a bill by his father for all the costs of raising him. He paid the bill — and never spoke to his father again. Or as Marx and Engels famously put it, the extension of markets and money into new domains of social life has “pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.

But what they neglected to add is that social ties don’t stay torn asunder forever. The older social relations that organized production may be replaced by the cash nexus, but that is not the last step, even under capitalism. In the Keynesian vision, at least, this is a temporary step toward the re-embedding of productive activity in new social relationships. I described money a moment ago as a social solvent. But one could also call it a social catalyst. By breaking up the social ties that formerly organized productive activity, it allows them to be reorganized in new and more complex forms.

Money, in the Keynesian vision, is a tool that allows promises between strangers. But people who work together do not remain strangers. Early corporations were sometimes organized internally as markets, with “inside contractors” negotiating with each other. But reliance on the callous cash payment seldom lasted for long. Large-scale production today depends on coordination through formal authority. Property rights become a kind of badge or regalia of the person who has coordination rights, rather than the organizing principle in its own right.

Money and credit are critical for re-allocating resources and activity, when big changes are needed. But big changes are inherently a transition from one state to another. Money is necessary to establish new production communities but not to maintain them once they exist. Money as a social solvent frees up the raw material — organized human activity — from which larger structures, more extensive divisions of labor, are built. But once larger-scale coordination established, the continued presence of this social solvent eating away at it, becomes destructive.

This brings us to the political vision. Keynes, as Jim Crotty emphasizes, consistently described himself as a socialist. Unlike some of his American followers, he saw the transformation of productive activity via money and private investment as being a distinct historical process with a definite endpoint.

There is, I think, a deep affinity between the Keynes vision of the economy as a system of monetary production, and the idea that this system can be transcended.

If money is merely a veil, as orthodox economics imagines, that implies that social reality must resemble money. It is composed of measurable quantities with well-defined ownership rights, which can be swapped and combined to yield discrete increments of human wellbeing. That’s just the way the world is. But if we see money as a distinct institution, that frees us to imagine the rest of life in terms of concrete human activities, with their own logics and structures. It opens space for a vision of the good life as something quite different from an endless accumulation of commodities – a central strand of Keynes’ thinking since his early study of the philosopher G. E. Moore.

In contemporary debates – over climate change in particular – a “Keynesian” position is often opposed to a degrowth one. But as Victoria Chick observes in a perceptive essay, there are important affinities between Keynes and anti-growth writers like E. F. Schumacher. He looked forward to a world in which accumulation and economic growth had come to an end, daily life was organized around “friendship and the contemplation of beautiful objects,” and the pursuit of wealth would be regarded as “one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.”

This vision of productive activity as devoted to its own particular ends, and of the good life as something distinct from the rewards offered by the purchase and use of commodities, suggests a deeper affinity with Marx and the socialist tradition.

Keynes was quite critical of what he called “doctrinaire State Socialism.” But his objections, he insisted, had nothing to do with its aims, which he shared. Rather, he said, “I criticize it because it misses the significance of what is actually happening.” In his view, “The battle of Socialism against unlimited private profit is being won in detail hour by hour … We must take full advantage of the natural tendencies of the day.”

From Keynes’ point of view, the tension between the logic of money and the needs of production was already being resolved in favor of the latter. In his 1926 essay “The End of Laissez Faire,” he observed that “one of the most interesting and unnoticed developments of recent decades has been the tendency of big enterprise to socialize itself.” As shareholders’ role in the enterprise diminishes, “the general stability and reputation of the institution are more considered by the management than the maximum of pro

A shift from production for profit to production for use — to borrow Marx’s language — did not necessarily require a change in formal ownership. The question is not ownership as such, but the source of authority of those managing the production process, and the ends to which they are oriented. Market competition creates pressure to organize production so as to maximize monetary profits over some, often quite short, time horizon. But this pressure is not constant or absolute, and it is offset by other pressures. Keynes pointed to the example of the Bank of England, still in his day a private corporation owned by its shareholders, but in practice a fully public institution.

Marx himself had imagined something similar:

As he writes in Volume III of Capital,

Stock companies in general — developed with the credit system — have an increasing tendency to separate … management as a function from the ownership of capital… the mere manager who has no title whatever to the capital, … performs all the real functions pertaining to the functioning capitalist as such, … and the capitalist disappears as superfluous from the production process.

The separation of ownership from direction or oversight of production in the corporation is, Marx argues, an important step away from ownership as the organizing principle of production. “The stock company,” he continues, “is a transition toward the conversion of all functions… which still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of associated producers.”

In short, he writes, the joint stock company represents as much as the worker-owned cooperative “the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself.”

It might seem strange to imagine the tendency toward self-socialization of the corporation when examples of its subordination to finance are all around us. Sears, Toys R Us, the ice-cream-and-diner chain Friendly’s – there’s a seemingly endless list of functioning businesses purchased by private equity funds and then hollowed out or liquidated while generating big payouts for capital owners. Surely this is as far as one could get from Keynes’ vision of an inexorable victory of corporate socialism over private profit?

But I think this is a one-sided view. I think it’s a mistake — a big mistake — to identify the world around us as one straightforwardly organized by markets, the pursuit of profit and the logic of money.

As David Graeber emphasized, there is no such thing as a capitalist economy, or even a capitalist enterprise. In any real human activity, we find distinct social logics, sometimes reinforcing each other, sometimes in contradiction.

We should never imagine world around us — even in the most thoroughly “capitalist” moments — is simply the working out of a logic pdf property, prices and profit. Contradictory logics at work in every firm — even the most rapacious profit hungry enterprise depends for its operations on norms, rules, relationships of trust between the people who constitute it. The genuine material progress we have enjoyed under capitalism is not just due to the profit motive but perhaps even more so in spite of it.

One benefit of this perspective is it helps us see broader possibilities for opposition to the rule of money. The fundamental political conflict under capitalism is not just between workers and owners, but between logic of production process and of private ownership and markets. Thorstein Veblen provocatively imagined this latter conflict taking the form of a “soviet of engineers” rebelling against “sabotage” by financial claimants. A Soviet of engineers may sound fanciful today, but conflicts between the interests of finance and the needs of productive enterprise — and those who identify with them — are ongoing.

Teaching and nursing, for example, are the two largest occupations that require professional credentials.But teachers and nurses are also certainly workers, who organize as workers — teachers have one of the highest unionization rates of any occupation. In recent years, this organizing can be quite adversarial, even militant. We all recall waves of teacher strikes in recent years — not only in California but in states with deeply anti-union politics like West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona and Kentucky. The demands in these strikes have been workers’ demands for better pay and working conditions. But they have also been professionals’ demands for autonomy and respect and the integrity of their particular production process. From what I can tell, these two kinds of demands are intertwined and reinforcing.

This struggle for the right to do one’s job properly is sometimes described as “militant professionalism.” Veblen may have talked about engineers rather than teachers, but this kind of politics is, I think, precisely what he had in mind.

More broadly, we know that public sector unions are only effective when they present themselves as advocates for the public and for the users of the service they provide, and not only for their members as workers. Radical social service workers have fought for the rights of welfare recipients. Powerful health care workers unions, like SEIU 1199 in New York, are successful because they present themselves as advocates for the health care system as a whole.

On the other side, I think most of us would agree that the decline or disappearance of local news outlets is a real loss for society. Of course, the replacement of newspapers with social media and search engines isn’t commodification in the straightforward sense. This is a question of one set of for-profit businesses being displaced by another. But on the other hand, newspapers are not only for-profit businesses. There is a distinct professional ethos of journalism, that developed alongside journalism as a business. Obviously the “professional conscience” (the phrase is Michelet’s) of journalists was compatible with the interests of media businesses. But it was not reducible to them. And often enough, it was in tension with them.

I am very much in favor of new models of employee-owned, public and non-profit journalism. Certainly there is an important role for government ownership, and for models like Wikipedia. But I also think — and this is the distinct contribution of the Keynesian socialist — that we should not be thinking only in terms of payments and ownership. The development of a distinct professional norms for today’s information sector is independently valuable and necessary, regardless of who owns new media companies. It may be that creating space for those norms is the most important contribution that alternative ownership models can make

For a final example of this political possibilities of the monetary-production view, we can look closer by, to higher education, where most of us in this room make our institutional home. We have all heard warnings about how universities are under attack, they’re being politicized or corporatized, they’re coming to be run more like businesses. Probably some of us have given such warnings.

I don’t want to dismiss the real concerns behind them. But what’s striking to me is how much less often one hears about the positive values that are being threatened. Think about how often you hear people talk about how the university is under attack, is in decline, is being undermined. Now think about how often you hear people talk about the positive values of intellectual inquiry for its own sake that the university embodies. How often do you hear people talk about the positive value of academic freedom and self-government, either as specific values of the university or as models for the broader society? If your social media feed is like mine, you may have a hard time finding examples of that second category at all.

Obviously, one can’t defend something from attack without at some point making the positive case that there is something there worth defending. But the point is broader than that. The self-governing university dedicated to education and scholarship and as ends in themselves, is not, despite its patina of medieval ritual, a holdover from the distant past. It’s an institution that has grown up alongside modern capitalism. It’s an institution that, in the US especially, has greatly expanded within our own lifetimes.

If we want to think seriously about the political economy of the university, we can’t just talk about how it is under attack. We must also be able to talk about how it has grown, how it has displaced social organization on the basis of profit. (We should note here the failure of the for-profit model in higher education.) We should of course acknowledge the ways in which higher education serves the needs of capital, how it contributes to the reproduction of labor power. But we also should acknowledge all the ways that is more than this.

When we talk about the value of higher education, we often talk about the products — scholarship, education. But we don’t often talk about the process, the degree to which academics, unlike most other workers, manage our own classrooms according to our own judgements about what should be taught and how to effectively teach it. We don’t talk about how, almost uniquely in modern workplaces, we the faculty employees make decisions about hiring and promotion collectively and more or less democratically. People from all over the world come to study in American universities. It’s remarkable — and remarkably little discussed — how this successful export industry is, in effect, run by worker co-ops.

At this moment in particular, it is vitally important that we make the case for academic freedom as a positive principle.

Let me spell out, since it may not be obvious, how this political vision connects to the monetary production vision of the economy that I was discussing earlier.

The dominant paradigm in economics — which shapes all of our thinking, whether we have ever studied economics in the classroom — is what Keynes called, I distinction to his own approach, the real exchange vision. From the real-exchange perspective, money prices and payments are a superficial express of pre-existing qualities of things — that they are owned by someone, that they take a certain amount of labor to produce and have a definite capacity to satisfy human needs. From this point of view, production is just a special case of exchange.

It’s only once we see money as an institution in itself, a particular way of organizing human life, that we can see production as something distinct and separate from it. That’s what allows us to see the production process itself, and the relationships and norms that constitute it, as a site of social power and a market on a path toward a better world. The use values we socialists oppose to exchange value exist in the sphere of production as well as consumption. The political demands that teachers make as teachers are not legible unless we see the activity they’re engaged in in terms other than equivalents of money paid and received.

I want to end by sketching out a second political application of this vision, in the domain of climate policy.

First, decarbonization will be experienced as an economic boom. Money payments, I’ve emphasized, are an essential tool for rearranging productive activity, and decarbonizing will require a great deal of our activity to be rearranged. There will be major changes in our patterns of production and consumption, which in turn will require substantial changes to our means of production and built environment. These changes are brought about by flows money.

Concretely: creating new means of production, new tools and machinery and knowledge, requires spending money. Abandoning old ones does not. Replacing existing structures and tools and techniques faster than they would be in the normal course of capitalist development, implies an increase in aggregate money expenditure. Similarly, when a new or expanding business wants to bid workers away from other employment, they have to offer a higher wage than an established business needs to in order to retain its current workers. So a rapid reallocation of workers implies a faster rise in money wages.

So although decarbonization will substantively involve a mix of expansions of activity in some areas and reduction of activity in others, it will increase the aggregate volume of money flows. A boom in this sense is not just a period of faster measured growth, but a period in which demand is persistently high relative to the economy’s productive potential and tight labor markets strengthen the bargaining position of workers relative to employers – what is sometimes called a “high-pressure economy.”

Second. There is no tradeoff between decarbonization and current living standards. Decarbonization is not mainly a matter of diverting productive activity away from other needs, but mobilizing new production, with positive spillovers toward production for other purposes.

Here again, there is a critical difference between the monetary-production and the real-exchange views of the economy. In the real-exchange paradigm, we possess a certain quantity of “means.” If we choose to use some of them to reduce our carbon emissions, there will be less available for everything else. But when we think in terms of social coordination organized in large part through money flows, there is no reason to think this. There is no reason to believe that everyone who is willing and able to work is actually working, or people’s labor is being used in anything like its best possible way for the satisfaction of real human needs. Nor are relative prices today a good guide to long-run social tradeoffs.

Third. If we face a political conflict involving climate and growth, this will come not because decarbonization requires accepting a lower level of growth, but because it will entail faster economic growth than existing institutions can handle. Today’s neoliberal macroeconomic model depends on limiting economic growth as a way of managing distributional conflicts. Rapid growth under decarbonization will be accompanied by disproportionate rise in wages and the power of workers. Most of us in this room will probably see that as a desirable outcome. But it will inevitably create sharp conflicts and resistance from wealth owners, which need to be planned for and managed. Complaints about current “labor shortages” should be a warning call on this front.

Fourth. There is no international coordination problem — the countries that move fastest on climate will reap direct benefits.

An influential view of the international dimension of climate policy is that “free riding … lies at the heart of the failure to deal with climate change.” (That is Richard Nordhaus, who won the Nobel for his work on the economics of climate change.) Individual countries, in this view, bear the full cost of decarbonization measures but only get a fraction of the global benefits, and countries that do not engage in decarbonization can free-ride on the efforts of those that do.

A glance at the news should be enough to show you how backward this view is. Do Europeans look at US support for the wind, solar and battery industries, or the US at China’s support for them, and say, “oh, what wonderfully public-spirited shouldering of the costs of the climate crisis”? Obviously not. Rather, they are seen as strategic investments which other countries, in their own national interest, must seek to match.

Fifth. Price based measures cannot be the main tools for decarbonization.

There is a widely held view that the central tool for addressing climate should be an increase in the relative price of carbon-intensive commodities, through a carbon tax or equivalent. I was at a meeting a few years ago where a senior member of the Obama economics team was also present. “The only question I have about climate policy,” he said, “is whether a carbon tax is 80 percent of the solution, or 100 percent of the solution.” If you’ve received a proper economics education, this is a very reasonable viewpoint. You’ve been trained to see the economy as essentially an allocation problem where existing resources need to be directed to their highest-value use, and prices are the preferred tool for that.

From a Keynesian perspective the problem looks different. The challenge is coordination — bottlenecks and the need for simultaneous advances in multiple areas. Markets can, in the long run, be very powerful tools for this, but they can’t do it quickly. For rapid, large-scale reorganization of activity, they have to be combined with conscious planning — and that is the problem. The fundamental constraint on decarbonization should not be viewed as the potential output of the economy, but of planning capacity for large-scale non-market coordination.

If there is a fundamental conflict between capitalism and sustainability, I suggest, it is not because the drive for endless accumulation in money terms implies or requires an endless increase in material throughputs. Nor is it the need for production to generate a profit. There’s no reason why a decarbonized production process cannot be profitable. It’s true that renewable energy, with its high proportion of fixed costs, is not viable in a fully competitive market — but that’s a characteristic it shares with many other existing industries.

The fundamental problem, rather, is that capitalism treats the collective processes of social production as the private property of individuals. It is because the fiction of a market economy prevents us from developing the forms of non-market coordination that actually organize production, and that we will need on a much larger scale. Rapid decarbonization will require considerably more centralized coordination than is usual in today’s advanced economies. Treatment of our collective activity to transform the world as if it belonged exclusively to whoever holds the relevant property rights, is a fundamental obstacle to redirecting that activity in a rational way.

Ages of American Capitalism: A History of the United States

View Details

(I write a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in September. My previous pieces are here.)

New data about productivity are some of the best on record in recent years. That’s good news for economic growth. But just as important, it offers support for the unorthodox idea that demand shapes the economy’s productive potential. Taking this idea seriously would require us to rethink much conventional wisdom on macroeconomic policy.

Real output per hour grew 2.6% in 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, exceeding the highest rates seen between 2010 and the eve of the pandemic. That said, productivity is one of the most challenging macroeconomic outcomes to measure. It is constructed from three distinct series—nominal output, prices, and employment. Short-term movements often turn out to be noise. It’s an open question whether that high rate will be sustained. But if it is, that will tell us something important about economic growth.

Discussions of productivity growth tend to treat it as the result of unpredictable scientific breakthroughs and new technologies, whose appearance has nothing to do with current economic conditions. This view of technological change as “exogenous,” in the jargon, is entrenched in economics textbooks. And it’s reinforced by the self-mythologizing barons of Silicon Valley, who are only too happy to take credit for economic good news.

The economic conditions that lead companies to actually adopt new technologies get much less attention, as does the fact that much productivity growth comes from people shifting from lower-value to higher-value activities without the need for any new technology at all.

A recent New York Times article is typical. It discusses faster productivity growth almost entirely in terms of the new technologies — AI, Zoom, internet shopping — that might, or might not, be contributing. Not until 40 paragraphs in is there a brief mention of the strong labor market, and the incentives that rising wages create to squeeze more out of each hour of labor.

What if we didn’t treat this as an afterthought? There’s a case to be made that demand is, in fact, a central factor in productivity growth.

The economic historian Gavin Wright has made this case for both the 1990s — our modern benchmarks for productivity success stories — and the 1920s, an earlier period of rapid productivity growth and technological change. Wright considers the adoption of general-purpose technologies: electricity in the ‘20s and computers in the ‘90s. Both had existed for some time but weren’t widely adopted until rising labor costs provided the right incentives. He observes that in both periods strong wage growth started before productivity accelerated.

In the retail sector, for instance, it was in the 1990s that IT applications like electronic monitoring of shelf levels, barcode scanning and electronic payments came into general use. None of these technologies were new at the time; what had changed was the tight market for retail employment that made automation worthwhile.

The idea that demand can have lasting effects on the economy’s productive potential – what economists call hysteresis — has gotten attention in recent years. Discussions of hysteresis tend to focus on labor supply — people dropping out of the labor market when jobs are scarce, and re-entering when conditions improve. The effect of demand on productivity is less often discussed. But it may be even more important.

After the 2007-2009 recession, gross domestic product in the U.S. (and most other rich countries) failed to return to its pre-recession trend. By 2017, a decade after the recession began, real GDP was a full 10% below what prerecession forecasters had expected. There is wide agreement that much, if not all, of this shortfall was the result of the collapse of demand in the recession. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers at the time called the decisive role of demand in the slow growth of the 2010s a matter of “elementary signal identification.”

Why did growth fall short? If you look at the CBO’s last economic forecasts before the recession, the agency was predicting 6% growth in employment between 2007 and 2017. And as it turned out, over those ten years, employment grew by exactly 6%. The entire gap between actual GDP and the CBO’s pre-recession forecasts was from slower growth in output per worker. In other words, this shortfall was entirely due to lower productivity.

If you believe that slow growth in the 2010s was largely due to the lingering effects of the recession — and I agree with Summers that the evidence is overwhelming on this point — then what we saw in that decade was weak demand holding back productivity. And if depressed demand can slow down productivity growth, then, logically, we would expect strong demand to speed it up.

A few economists have consistently made the case for this link. Followers of John Maynard Keynes often emphasize this link under the name “Verdoorn’s law.” The law, as Keynesian economist Matias Vernengo puts it in a new article, holds that “technical change is the result, and not the fundamental cause of economic growth.” Steve Fazzari, another Keynesian economist, has explored this idea in several recent papers. But for the most part, mainstream economists have yet to embrace it.

This perspective does occasionally make it into the world of policy debates. In a 2017 report, Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute argued that “low rates of unemployment and rapid wage growth would likely induce faster productivity growth.” Skanda Amarnath and his colleagues at Employ America have made similar arguments. In a 2017 report for the Roosevelt Institute, I discussed a long list of mechanisms linking demand to productivity growth, as well as evidence that this was what explained slower growth since the recession.

If you take these sorts of arguments seriously, the recent acceleration in productivity should not be a surprise. And we don’t need to go looking for some tech startup to thank for it. It’s the natural result of a sustained period of tight labor markets and rising wages.

There are many good reasons for productivity growth to be faster in a tight labor market, as I discussed in the Roosevelt report. Businesses have a stronger incentive to adopt less labor-intensive techniques, and they are more likely to invest when they are running at full capacity. Higher-productivity firms can outbid lower-productivity ones for scarce workers. New firms are easier to start in a boom than in a slump.

When you think about it, it’s strange that concepts like Verdoorn’s law are not part of the economics mainstream. Shouldn’t they be common sense?

Nonetheless, the opposite view underlies much of policymaking, particularly at the Federal Reserve. At his most recent press conference, Fed Chair Jay Powell was asked whether he still thought that wage growth was too high for price stability. Powell confirmed that, indeed, he thought that wage gains were still excessively strong. But, he said, they were gradually moving back to levels “associated — given assumptions about productivity growth — with 2% inflation.”

The Fed’s view that price stability requires limiting workers’ bargaining power is a long-standing problem. But focus now on those assumptions. Taking productivity growth as given, unaffected by policy, risks making the Fed’s pessimism self-confirming. (This is something that Fed economists have worried about in the past.) If the Fed succeeds in getting wages down to the level consistent with the relatively slow productivity growth it expects, that itself may be what stops us from getting the faster productivity growth that the economy is capable of.

The good news is that, as I’ve written here before, the Fed is not all-powerful. The current round of rate hikes has not, so far, done much to cool off the labor market. If that continues to be the case, then we may be in for a period of sustained productivity growth and rising income.

View Details

This is a guest post by Michael Kinnucan.

The Collapsing Center and Solidifying Periphery of the US Healthcare System

Contrary to what most people on the US left might tell you, there’s nothing intrinsically impossible about building a healthcare system that provides universal coverage on the foundation of employer-sponsored insurance. Germany and France and several other countries have done it, and we could do it too. The way you do it is to start with core-economy full-time workers and their families, and then steadily patch and regulate your way to universal coverage (“what about retirees? The unemployed? Freelancers? What happens when people change jobs? What about employers too small to offer coverage?” and so forth) until you’ve covered everyone. This kind of system will never be quite as seamless and efficient as single-payer, but it is workable.

What has made this effort uniquely difficult in the US case, however, has been the spiraling overall cost of US healthcare. Virtually all healthcare systems in the developed world–including multi-payer systems like Germany’s–are built on a firm foundation of medical price control. US observers are acutely aware of this in the case of pharmaceuticals, but the situation is similar across the healthcare industry; Germany, for instance, sets the price of physicians’ services and hospital care through regional sectoral bargaining.

The US, for political reasons, has proven incapable of imposing similar discipline on the healthcare market. Prices are negotiated in a medical marketplace where the sellers of healthcare hold significant market power, and this process is intrinsically inflationary. This inflation has been far more intense in the employer-insurance market than in the public sector, particularly since the mid-1980s; Medicare and private-insurance prices have diverged to the point where commercial insurers pay on average 254% of Medicare for the same procedures.

This inflationary dynamic has put continuous pressure on the employer-sponsored insurance market, with large, high-margin businesses complaining about the ever-growing cost of healthcare while smaller and lower-wage businesses simply restrict or cancel coverage. Thus would-be US healthcare reformers have found themselves in the strange position of trying to “patch” marginal populations into a system centered on employer-based coverage even as the center of the system constantly threatens to collapse.

Thus, while the US public tends to equate employer-based coverage with quality and stability and to imagine healthcare reform as the process of granting new populations access to that quality and stability, in fact employer-sponsored insurance has continuously declined in quality and occasionally been faced with a death spiral in the face of constantly increasing costs. And while proponents of universal healthcare tend to be motivated by the plight of those locked out of the employer-based healthcare system (the poor, the unemployed), major efforts at healthcare reform have often been driven not by the problems of these groups but by problems within the employer market.

The Cost Control Deadlock

This dynamic has shaped mainstream US healthcare reform efforts since the Carter administration. The ambition of reformers has been to simultaneously expand coverage and control costs. This double aim is frequently given a superficial fiscal gloss (coverage expansion is “paid for” through cost control), but its real logic is political. Proponents of this strategy hope to (1) use the promise of cost control (in the employer market) to guarantee business support for coverage expansion (generally through public programs), while simultaneously (2) using coverage expansion (providing more paying customers for the healthcare industry) to mitigate healthcare industry opposition to cost control (reducing aggregate payments to the healthcare industry).

The logic of this interlocking set of political bargains has proven more compelling in theory than successful in practice. More specifically, the US political system has revealed a systematic preference for simply spending more money to expand coverage without doing much to achieve cost control–particularly employer-market cost control. The healthcare lobby has shown itself to be very focused on opposing cost control and highly effective in doing so, to the point where even obviously egregious abuses that provoke nominally bipartisan opposition have taken decades to address (so-called “surprise billing,” for instance, or the blank check to pharmaceutical companies incorporated in Medicare Part D). The central political lesson of US healthcare reform efforts going all the way back to Truman is that it’s virtually impossible to pass major reform without buying off the provider lobbies.

For this reason reformers have tended to want to hide the ball on cost control, avoiding obvious and internationally well-known methods like price control and national budgeting in favor of Rube Goldberg “managed competition” and “value-based payment” schemes that are unpopular with patients, difficult for the public to understand and of questionable efficacy in any case.

The business lobby, in turn–which reformers have for decades seen as the natural constituency for cost control–has tended to take the clear downsides of reform (higher taxes and more regulation) more seriously than the alleged upside of long-term cost control, and to put more faith in the tried-and-true method of shifting costs onto employees than on regulatory schemes to achieve savings. Business (at least big business) tends to like the idea of cost-control-oriented healthcare reform in theory, but in practice has proven a fickle ally for reformers.

Abandoning Cost Control and Achieving Coverage: The Legacy of the ACA

This situation represents a deadlock for what used to be called “comprehensive” healthcare reform, but no such deadlock applies to the far simpler project of simply using tax dollars to pay for expanded healthcare coverage. Such a strategy may face opposition from fiscal conservatives, but it is enduringly popular with the US public (who have long been committed to the idea of universal healthcare) and under the right conditions can easily win support from the healthcare lobbies (who stand to attract those public dollars). The political project of “comprehensive” healthcare reform died a famous death in 1993, but the political project of “spending public money to buy people healthcare” scored notable successes, including a steady expansion of Medicaid eligibility and the passage of CHIP during the Clinton administration and the passage of Medicare Part D under George W. Bush.

The situation, in other words, was the very opposite of how progressives have sometimes described it–it’s not that the US political system wants universal health coverage but is too stingy to pay for it, but rather that the US political system is perfectly prepared to do universal coverage as long as no significant savings are attached.

The ACA was the culmination of this tradition. That likely wasn’t what its architects intended–healthcare wonks still dreamed of “bending the cost curve”–but it was what the law did. While the ACA is best remembered for creating the “individual market” with its famous three-legged stool, the real story is simpler: The ACA spent roughly a trillion dollars over 10 years to cover roughly 30 million people through a combination of free Medicaid and very heavily subsidized private insurance, with the funding coming not from comprehensive cost control but from from tax revenue and suppression of Medicare cost increases.1

From McDonough, Inside National Health Reform, p. 282. One wrinkle to this reform strategy was the risk of employer “dumping”: if the government was prepared to heavily subsidize working-class insurance coverage, why wouldn’t employers–and workers, for that matter–simply go where the subsidies were? This was a particularly significant risk for low-wage workers; such workers were eligible for very significant subsidies on the exchange, their employers would be eager to control costs, and their employer-sponsored coverage was often nothing to write home about. They might well have been better off on the exchanges or Medicaid.

One can imagine a version of the ACA that simply embraced this dynamic, moving millions of low-wage workers into heavily subsidized individual coverage–and that version would likely have been more progressive. It would also have been significantly more disruptive and costly. Instead, the ACA dealt with this problem primarily through the “employer mandate,” which required employers with over 50 employees to offer coverage or pay a significant penalty. Smaller employers were exempt, but the law also reformed the “small group” insurance market in which these firms purchased insurance, requiring community rating for these plans, which succeeded–for a time, at least–in preventing a looming death spiral in that market.

On its own terms, this general strategy was a success. The ACA insured millions of people (by buying them insurance) while avoiding “dumping.” The share of non-elderly Americans in employer coverage, which fell nearly 10 percentage points between 1999 and 2011, rose slightly as the economy recovered from the Great Recession and has remained quite steady ever since. While over 8% of Americans remain uninsured, progressives should not mistake this for a fundamental limitation in the ACA framework: many of the uninsured are in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, or are eligible for coverage but not enrolled, or fall into various immigrant groups not covered by the law. Aggressive state action on enrollment and uptake within the ACA framework and a commitment to covering immigrants out of state funds could reduce uninsured rates to the disappearing point.

The Unfinished Business of Cost Control

What of cost control? There was one radical cost-control proposal on the table: the much-misunderstood “public option,” which in its original form would have introduced into the marketplace a public plan paying Medicare prices. This would effectively have imported public cost control into the private market, forcing private insurers to either slash their own payments to providers to Medicare levels or get out. The consequences of such a move would have upset the entire structure of the ACA; exchange insurance would have become far cheaper than employer insurance, drawing tens of millions of people out of employer insurance into the market and radically reshaping the US health insurance system. Clearly no such move was in the cards, and the public option was first modified to pay market prices (which would have defeated its purpose), then dropped entirely.

To the extent that the ACA did anything on cost control in the individual or employer market, it addressed the issue by inviting employers to make their insurance offerings worse. Employers were required to offer some form of insurance, but the standard for that insurance was very low indeed; employees could be charged up to nearly 10% of their income in premiums for coverage with high deductibles and extensive cost-sharing. More ambitiously, the ACA attempted to fulfill a longstanding bipartisan dream of healthcare policy wonks by rolling back the tax subsidy for employer-based insurance; the so-called “Cadillac tax” would have revoked the subsidy initially only for the most generous employer insurance, but would over time have come to apply to most insurance. This effort corresponded to a long-held belief in the healthcare policy community that the tax subsidy encouraged employers to offer excessively generous coverage, and that this coverage in turn drove US healthcare costs.

Charitably, these design choices represented an effort at cost control through the “skin in the game” strategy: when required to pay a larger portion of their healthcare costs, Americans would be less likely to go to the doctor just for fun. Less charitably, they were an invitation for employers to at any rate control employers’ healthcare costs, by shifting a growing share of those costs onto employees. This safety valve was crucial, since employers would no longer be able to limit their costs as they had in the past, by dropping coverage.

The Unfinished Business of the ACA and the Coming Crisis in Employer Insurance

As I said above, the ACA worked on its own terms: the law actually passed, it greatly expanded coverage by providing government subsidies for those locked out of the employer market, and it did so without causing massive outflows or disruptions in employer insurance. The strategy of expanding coverage without controlling costs was effective.

But that was over a decade ago, and costs have continued to rise. The ACA left employer-based insurance untouched at the heart of the US healthcare system, without resolving the inflationary pressure in the employer market. This pressure continues to grow. The average premium for employer-sponsored individual coverage has nearly doubled, from $4824 in 2009 to $8435 in 2023; for family coverage the number is $23,968.

How have employers responded? First and foremost by shifting a growing share of medical costs onto their employees. Worker contributions to premium payment, although capped at around 9% of worker income by the ACA, have grown in tandem with total premiums. At the same time, so-called “cost sharing” in US health insurance takes many forms and is difficult to measure, but the simplest proxy–the annual deductible–has nearly tripled in nominal terms since the advent of the ACA, from $533 in 2009 to $1568 in 2023, with workers at small firms paying $2138.2 As recently as 2006, 45% of workers faced no deductible for their coverage; that figure is now less than 10%. Many workers face significant cost-sharing in the form of “coinsurance” even after they hit their deductibles; it is common for a worker to owe 20% of hospital costs up to an out-of-pocket max that can be well north of $10,000. The growth of cost-sharing is the major contributor to a growing medical debt crisis, as hospitals attempt to collect from patients who can’t pay despite having insurance.

It is important to note that cost-sharing has restrained premium increases; if employers had had to hold cost-sharing constant, premiums would have grown even faster. This strategy is quickly approaching its limits, however; for actuarial reasons, further increases in deductible will face diminishing returns in premium savings, and at some point employers will run up against even the ACA’s fairly low bar on coverage quality. These limits are already being reached in the low-wage labor market.

Where will employers turn next? One possibility is to skirt the limits of the ACA’s employer mandate–for example by offering plans that cover “minimum essential benefits” under the ACA but do not meet the ACA’s “minimum value” requirements because they leave employers with enormous out-of-pocket expenses. An employee misinformed enough to enroll in such coverage is effectively uninsured, but the employer pays only part of the penalty for not offering insurance. Another option is so-called “reference-based pricing” schemes, which do not have networks and do not negotiate prices with providers, instead paying a low standard rate for care. Employees with this kind of coverage may find most providers unwilling to treat them and may be “balance billed” for enormous amounts of money when they do receive care.

As a last resort–particularly if the loopholes I just described are closed by regulators, which they should be and which provider lobbies will demand that they are–some employers may choose to simply drop coverage and pay the penalty. The ACA’s employer mandate penalties are significant, but they’re not prohibitive; if premiums continue rising there will come a point when they’re cheaper than offering insurance. If this happens, employees will have no choice but to seek insurance on the individual market or (if they’re poor enough) enroll in Medicaid.

A tight labor market has limited these dynamics so far, but the next recession may prove a turning point. At that point, the dam the ACA set up to prevent employers from “dumping” employees into publicly subsidized coverage will have broken.

Progressive Strategy for the Next Healthcare Crisis

As employer insurance begins to unravel around the edges, progressives will be tempted to step in and save it. They should think twice before doing so. There’s a lot to be said for a situation in which a growing share of Americans receive health insurance through Medicaid and through public subsidy on the ACA exchanges.

Medicaid and (especially) the ACA exchange have their problems, but they already offer better and more affordable insurance than low-end employer plans, and more importantly their problems are far easier to fix than the problems of the employer market. If Medicaid pays too little to providers and has too few providers, its reimbursement rates can be raised. If ACA exchange insurance is too expensive, that insurance can be subsidized, at both the state and federal level. If exchange insurance has high cost-sharing and inadequate networks, states and the federal government have full power to set standards in these markets. Perhaps most importantly, states have proven quite effective at controlling costs for the non-elderly Medicaid population, and could do the same for the exchange population, as recent state experiments with so-called “public options” in Washington, New Mexico and elsewhere demonstrate. States can even find ways to expand Medicaid-like coverage for working-class people, as New York and Minnesota already do through Basic Health Plan programs.

All these policy aims are far more easily achieved in a single, centralized individual market than in the fragmented and opaque employer market–and they free policymakers from a sharp tradeoff where raising standards for working-class insurance coverage imposes costs on businesses or causes them to drop coverage. Non-employer insurance also offers far better opportunities for state-level policymaking than does the employer marketplace, since states are virtually banned from regulating employer insurance under ERISA. If ambitious healthcare reform is blocked at the federal level for the foreseeable future, progressives have ample opportunity to experiment with such reform in the states.

What would such an agenda look like? At the federal level, the Biden administration can likely raise the bar on employer insurance through regulatory action, taking a closer look at whether employer insurance meets “minimum essential coverage” and especially “minimum value” standards and whether employers are appropriately informing employees of their rights. Setting clearer minimum standards on employer insurance will cause some employers to stop offering it–and instead of fighting that dynamic, progressives should focus on ensuring that their employees have good options elsewhere, by instituting or expanding Basic Health Plan and Medicaid buy-in options, increasing subsidies and standards on state and federal exchanges, and implementing robust public options wherever possible.

Even if successful, this strategy wouldn’t spell the end of employer insurance overnight. 59% of non-elderly Americans receive insurance through their or their family’s employer; that’s a lot of people, and it would still be a lot of people even if employers began to drop coverage. But it’s easy to imagine a virtuous cycle where, as Medicaid and individual market populations grow, a large and diverse constituency grows for improving them. In the long run, the prospects for truly universal healthcare might be far better than they are today.

View Details

(I wrote this back in 2020, and never posted it. The context is different now, but the substance still seems valid.)

Here is my mental model, for whatever it’s worth:

(1) The US-China trade balance is determined in the short to medium run by relative income growth in the two countries. In the medium to long run relative prices do play a role. But at least past the early stages of industrialization, the impact of exchange rates is thru producer entry/exit than thru expenditure switching. The impact of the overvalued dollar of the early 80s came mainly through e.g. the bankruptcy of US steel producers selling at world prices, rather than a loss of market share from selling at US prices.

(2) Chinese capital controls limit cross-border financial flows. This especially limits the acquisition of foreign assets (including real estate, consequentially for New York) by Chinese firms and households. This implies greater net inward financial flows than there would be in absence of controls. This is probably the most important Chinese policy with respect to cross-border flows — a broad liberalization would be more likely to push the renminbi down than up.

(3) The Chinese central bank passively accumulates/decumulates whatever level of reserves are implied by the combination of 1 and 2.

(4) The exchange rate is either chosen by one or both governments or determined in speculative markets. (In practice this means the Chinese government, but there’s no in-principle reason why this has to be so.) There is no meaningful link from the trade balance to the exchange rate, and at most a weak link from the exchange rate to the trade balance. Exchange rate interventions are not an independent factor in reserve changes.

(5) The interest rate on US Treasury debt is determined by some mix of Fed policy and self-confirming market expectations (convention). Chinese reserve purchases play zero role.

(6) US deficit spending is not constrained, required, or influenced in any way by foreign reserve accumulation. When desired foreign reserve accumulation departs from new Treasury issues, the gap is accommodated by net sales between foreign central banks and the private sector.

(7) If a mismatch between the supply of Treasury issues and the demand for reserve accumulation creates pressure anywhere, it will be on private assets that are close substitutes for Treasuries. In particular, it is plausible that insufficient federal borrowing in 1990s-2000s helped create the mortgage securitization market.

(8) Returning to exchange rates. The fact that import price elasticities are low, and that most trade is priced in dollars, means that exchange rates affect trade mainly via exporters’ profit margins. An appreciation can undermine exports, but this is a slow process of failure/exit by exporters, and thus strongly depends on financial capacity of exporters to operate with diminished margins. So for instance the large, roughly symmetrical movements in the dollar-yen exchange rate in the first and second halves of the 1980s affected the US tradable sector more than the Japanese, because Japan’s bank-based financial system plus the lack of shareholder pressure made it easier to sustain losses for extended period there than in the US.

In the textbooks, we get a picture of a tightly articulated system where a change in behavior in one place must lead to an exactly offsetting change somewhere else, mediated by price changes. Given a set of fundamental parameters, there is only one possible equilibrium. The considerations above suggest a different vision.

In the orthodox vision, international trade and financial flows are like a pool of water. If you drop a rock in, the whole surface of the pool rises by the same amount. Of course there are passing ripples. But knowing what level this part of the pool was at a while go doesn’t tell you anything about what level it is at now. One could, though, just as easily imagine a pile of rocks. When you move one rock, it normally affects only the rocks in the immediate vicinity. And the same rocks can be piled up in many different ways; where they are now depends on where they were before.

From where I’m sitting, there are three major sources of flexibility in the international system, all of which undermine any claim that shift in one flow must lead to equivalent shift in some other flow.

First is the existence of passive, accommodating positions that act as buffers. Central bank reserves can function this way; this is accepted in mainstream theory. But so can bank loans and deposits, and positions taken by fx specialists. In the short run, bank deposits are always accommodating buffers for any other flow.

Second is speculative price dynamics that make asset demand endogenous to current price. Concretely: If an asset is held largely in hope of capital gains, as opposed to yield or use in production, and if there are anchored expectations of normal or long-run price x, then any position that produces a price move away x implies capital gains for anyone who takes the other side of the position. In markets where these kinds of speculative dynamics operate – and I think they operate very widely – then even large changes in flows don’t have to lead to significant price adjustments. (Conversely, shifting expectations can lead to large price changes without any shift in flows.)

Third is the fact that trade adjustment happens mainly thru entry/exit rather than expenditure switching in product markets. This means in effect that the balance sheets of exporting firms act as shock absorbers. Let’s say that a country’s financial assets become more desirable to global wealth owners, causing a financial inflow and (plausibly though not necessarily) an appreciation of its currency. In the textbook story, this leads to an equal and immediate fall in net exports. But in reality, with exports priced in global markets, the immediate effect is a fall in the profitability of exporters. Only over time, as those firms go bankrupt or give up on export markets, will trade volumes change.

View Details

I taught a class last semester on alternative theories of money, drawing heavily on Money and Things, the book I am working on with Arjun Jayadev. It was one of the best classes I’ve ever taught in terms of the quality of the discussions. John Jay MA students are always great, but this group was really exceptional. It was a a privilege to have such thoughtful and wide-ranging conversations, with such an enthusiastic and engaged group of (mostly) young people.

The class syllabus is here. A number of the readings were draft chapters from the book. I am not posting these publicly, but if you are interested you can contact me and I’ll be happy to share.

In this post, I want to sketch out some of the puzzles and questions around money — my own version of what makes money difficult. Many of these were explicit topics during the semester, others were in the background. I wouldn’t claim this is a comprehensive list, but I think most debates around money fall somewhere on here.

The first problem is defining the topic. When we talk about “money” as a distinct set of questions in economics, what are we distinguishing from what? In particular, are finance, credit and interest on the money side of the line? Given that aggregate demand is, presumably, defined in terms of desired monetary expenditure, are demand and its effects a subset of questions around money? The main classification codes for economics articles include a category for “Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics”; this suggests an affirmative answer, at least in the mainstream imagination. Do we agree?

Put another way, a focus on money in economic analysis means something quite different if the implied alternative is an imagined world of barter, versus if it’s a a broader range of financial arrangements. In the first case, talking about money involves a broadening of perspective, in the second case a narrowing of it. If someone says, “we have to think about the business cycle in terms of money” are they rejecting Real Business Cycle approaches (a good thing, in my book) or are they telling us to focus on M2 (not so good)?

In principle one would like to delineate the field designated by “money” before asking questions within it. But in practice what concepts we group with money depends on our views about it. So let’s move on to some more substantive questions.

First, is money better imagined as a (physical) token, or as a unit of measurement? Or perhaps better, does our analysis of money start with exchange, or with accounting? Do we start by asking what is the thing that is exchanged with commodities, and then build an account of its use as a standard of value and in debt contracts on top of that? Or do we start with he idea of money as a unit like the meter or second, which is used to denominate obligations? In which case the debts incurred in the circulation of commodities appear as one particular case of the more general category, and the question of what exactly is accepted in settlement of an obligation is secondary.

I think of this as the difference between an exchange-first and and an accounting-first approach; Schumpeter makes a similar distinction between money theories of credit and credit theories of money. You’ll find most economists from Adam Smith to modern textbook writers on the first side, along with Marx (arguably) and most Marxists (definitely). On the second side you’ll find Keynes (in the Treatise if not the General Theory)along with Schumpeter, various chartalists, and sociologists like Geoffrey Ingham.

This is a question about logical priority, about where we should start analytically. But the same question can be, and often is, posed as a historical one. Did money originate out of barter, or out of a system of public record-keeping? In principle, the origin of money is separate from the question of how we should best think go if it today. But in practice, almost everyone writing about the origin of money is interested in it because they think it is informative about, or a parable for, how money works in the present.

Another dimension of this question is how we think of the central bank. Do we think of it as — in some more or less metaphorical sense — issuing the nation’s currency? Or do we think of it as the peak institution of the banking system?

A second question, related to the first one, is, where do we draw the line between money and credit? Is there a sharp divide, or a continuum? Or does money just describe particular kinds of credit, or credit as it is used in certain settings? To the extent there is a distinction, which is primary and which is derivative? Is money any promise, or any promise that can be transferred to a third party, or anything that can be used to settle an obligation? Almost any statement about money can have a different meaning depending on what parts of credit and finance are implicitly being included with it.

Similarly, is there a sharp line between money and other assets, or does money describe some function(s) that can be performed to different degrees by many assets? An important corollary of this is, is there a meaningful quantity of money? If there is a sharp line between money and other assets then at any moment there should be a definite quantity of money in existence. If “moneyness” is a property which all kinds of assets possess in different degrees, then there isn’t. This is a more important question than it might seem, because many older debates about money are were framed in terms of the quantity of it, and it’s not always obvious how to translate them for a world where liquidity exists across the balance sheet, on both the asset and liability sides.

This is a question where the conventional wisdom has shifted quite sharply over the past generation. Into the 1990s, both mainstream and heterodox writers used the money stock M as a basic part of the theoretical toolkit. But now it has almost entirely disappeared from the conversation in both academic and policy worlds.1

Third: To the extent that it is meaningful to talk about a quantity of money, is the quantity fixed independently of demand for it, or does it vary endogenously with demand? (And if so, does this happen within the banking system, or through the actions of the monetary authority? — the old horizontalists versus verticalists debate.) When I was first studying economics, this question was a central line of conflict between (Post) Keynesians and the mainstream, but its valence has shifted since then. “Banks create money” used to be a touchstone for heterodox views; now it’s something that everyone knows. There is still the question of how much this matters, i.e. how much bank lending is constrained by the supply of reserves or monetary policy more broadly. Victoria Chick has a fascinating piece on shifting views on this question over the 20th century.

In general, talking about how M varies with demand for it now feels a bit conservative and old-fashioned, since it assumes that the money stock is an economically meaningful quantity. After teaching some of the same articles on these questions that I read in graduate school, I feel like the question is now: How can the debate over endogenous money be reformulated for a world without a distinct money stock? Another possible reframing: Is endogeneity inherent in the nature of money, or is it a contingent, institutional fact that evolves over time? At one point, bitcoin looked like an effort to re-exogenize the money supply; but I don’t think anybody talks about it that way anymore.

The flip side of the question of endogenous money — or maybe an alternative formulation of it — is, is the supply of money ever a constraint (on credit creation, and/or on real activity)? A negative answer is stronger than simply saying that the money supply is endogenous, since it further implies it can be expanded costlessly.

This leads to the fourth question: What role does money play in the determination of the interest rate? Is interest, as Bagehot got put it, the price of money? Or is it the price of savings, or of future relative to present consumption, which just happens to be expressed (like other prices) in terms of money? This is another long-standing frontline between orthodox economics and its Keynesian challengers, which remains an active site of conflict.

In the General Theory, Keynes developed his claims about money and interest in terms of demand for an exogenously fixed stock of money. This was a serious wrong turn, in my view; chapter 17 (“The Essential Properties of Interest and Money”) is in my opinion the worst chapter of the book, the one most likely to confuse and mislead modern readers.2 But unlike endogeneity, this is a Keynesian theme that is easily transposed to an accounting-first key. We simply have to think of interest as the price of liquidity, rather than of one particular asset. This view of interest — as opposed to one that starts from savings — remains arguably the most important dividing line between orthodoxy and followers of Keynes. In general, if you want to work within Keynes’ system, you shouldn’t be talking about saving at all.

The role of money in the determination of the interest rate leads to a fifth, broader question: Is money neutral? If so, with respect to what? And over what time horizon? In other words, do changes in the supply (or availability) of money affect “real” variables such as employment, or do they affect the price level? Or do they affect both, or neither?

From a political-policy perspective, neutrality is the question. Can increasing the availability of money (in general, or to some people in particular) solve coordination problems, mobilize unutilized resources, or otherwise increase the real wealth of the community? Or will it only bid up the price of the stuff that already exists? When, let’s say, late-19th century Populists demanded a more elastic currency, were they expressing the real interests of their farmer and artisan constituency, or were they victims (or peddlers) of economic snake oil? And if the former, what were the specific conditions that made more abundant money a meaningful political demand?

Another way of looking at this: Does money just facilitate trades that would have happened anyway? (What does it mean to facilitate, in that case?) On the other hand, if we think of money as a technology for making promises, for substituting a general obligation for a particular one, then it may do so to a greater or lesser extent. Increasing the availability of money, or broadening the range of ways it can be used, should make new forms of cooperation possible. If money is useful, shouldn’t it follow that more money is more useful?

Turning to the present, is the availability of money an important constraint on decarbonization? The content of this question is contingent on some of the earlier ones; is the terms no which credit is available to green projects a question of money? But even if you say yes, it’s not clear how important this dimension of the problem is. There’s a plausible case, to me at least, that there is a vast universe of decarbonization projects with positive private returns at any reasonable discount rate, which nonetheless aren’t undertaken because of a lack of financing. But it’s also possible that credit constraints are not all that important, at least not directly; that what’s scarce is the relevant skilled labor and organizational capacity, not financing.3

Though it lies a bit downstream from some of the more fundamental theoretical issues, money’s neutrality is probably the highest-stake question in these debates.

To what extent, and under what conditions, can increasing access to money and credit develop the real productive capacities of a community? To what extent are shorter-term fluctuations and crises the result of interruptions in the supply of money and credit? One reason, it seems to me, that debates on these questions can be so murky and acrimonious is that while economic orthodoxy makes a strong claim that money is neutral, there is no well-defined pole on the other side. Rejecting the textbook view, in itself, doesn’t tell us much about when and how money does matter.

The other side of this is the sixth question: What is the relationship between money and inflation? If money is neutral with respect to the “real” economy (bracketing what exactly this means) then what it does affect must be the price level. If you pick up, let’s say, Paul Krugman’s international economics textbook, you will find the thoroughly Friedmanesque claim that the central banks its the supply of money (M), that in the short run an increase in the supply of money may raise output and employment, but over periods beyond a few years, changes in the money supply simply translate one for one into changes the price level, with output and other “real” variables following the same path regardless of what the central bank does.

The claim that the price level varies directly with an exogenously fixed money supply is the quantity theory of money, arguably the oldest theory in economics. This can be derived on first principles only under a set of stringent assumptions that clearly done’t describe real economies. So is there some broader metaphorical sense in which it is sort of true, at least in some times and places? Inflation is only defined with respect a unit of account, but it’s not clear that there is any necessary link with money in its concrete existence.

Here, unlike the previous question, there are (at least) two well-defined poles. Anyone who has read anything on these issues has encountered Friedman’s koan that inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon. Against this there is a vocal group of economists (both Post Keynesian and more mainstream) who counter that “inflation is always and everywhere a conflict phenomenon.” Personally, I am not convinced that inflation is always and everywhere any one particular thing. But that is a topic for another time.

More broadly, whether reimagine “the money supply” as a fixed quantity or in terms of more or less elastic credit, we can ask, are changes in money supply linked to changes in prices, in incomes, in the interest rate, or some combination of them? This leads to the seventh question: Is the money supply, or the terms on which money is provided or created, an appropriate object of policy? This is partly question about what social objectives can be advanced by changes in the availability of money. But it is also a question about whether there is something inherently public about money as a social ledger, which means that it should be (or in some sense always is) the responsibility of the state.
Which brings us to question eight: Is there a fundamental relationship between money and the state, and with the authority to collect taxes? Georg Simmel famously described money as “a claim against society”. Who represents society, in this case? Is it — necessarily or in practice — the government? If we think of money as a ledger recording all kinds of obligations as commensurable quantities and allowing them to be netted out, is the use of such a shared ledger necessarily imposed by a sovereign authority, or can we think of it as arising organically? A bit more concretely: Is the value of money backed, in some sense, by the authority to tax? This view is strongly associated with chartalism. But you can also get a version of it from someone like Duncan Foley, working within the Marxist tradition.
Turning to money as a unit of measurement, our ninth question is: Do money values refer to some objective underlying quantity? And if so, what is it? What does it mean to speak of “real” values underlying the monetary ones? Obviously money values have objective content within a given pay community. For an individual within the community, the fact that two objects – or more precisely, two distinct property rights – have an equal price, implies the possibility of a choice between them. Ownership of this stuff and ownership of that stuff are equivalent in the sense that one can have one more of one by giving up an equal value of the other. For the community as a whole, we can, on some not too unreasonable assumptions, interpret price as reflecting the possibilities of producing more of one thing as opposed to something else.

But what about when comparisons are made outside of an exchange community? If there is no possibility of substitution either in the purchase or production of things – where there is no market in which they exchange – is there a sense in which we can nonetheless compare their value? Do the quantities of money describe some underlying “real” quantity? When we compare “real income” ver time or between different countries, what is it exactly that we are comparing?

The textbook answer is that we are thinking of the economy in terms of a single representative consumer whose preferences are the same in all times and places (and at all levels of income), and asking how much income in one setting it would take to buy a basket of goods that this representative consumer would willingly swap for the average basket of goods consumed somewhere else. When stated like this, it sounds absurd. Yet this is literally the basis for widely used price level measures like Purchasing Power Parity indexes used to compare real incomes across countries. The problem is actually even worse than this, since even on the most heroic assumptions there is no way to consistently measure price levels both across countries and over time.4 But it’s very hard for people — certainly for economists — to give up the idea that there exists something called “real GDP” or “real income” that behaves like a physical quantity.

If the neutrality of money is the question with the most immediate real-world implications, this one, I think, is where there is the biggest gap between what people assume or think they know, and what holds up on closer examination.

Related to this, question ten: Are relative prices prior to, or independent of, money prices? In his review of David Graeber’s Debt, Mike Beggs insisted that “States print the money, but not the price lists.” This is the orthodox view — if one of commodity A trades for two of commodity B, that is an intrinsic fact about the commodities themselves, reflecting their costs of production and/or their ability to satisfy human needs.It doesn’t depend on the fact that the prices are expressed in terms of money, or that the commodities are bought and sold for money rather than directly exchanged for each other.

But as I pointed out in my reply to Mike, not all economists agree with this. Hyman Minsky’s two-price model (much more interesting, in my mind, than the financial fragility hypothesis) is precisely an argument that money matters for the price of long-lived assets in a way that it does not for current output. The price of a building, say, cannot be derived from just the cost of producing it and the rent people will pay for it; it depend fundamentally on the terms on which it can be financed.

More broadly, we can think of some activities — those that lock in payment commitments while promising distant or uncertain income — as being more demanding of liquidity. Changes in the availability of money will change the price of these activities relative to those that are less liquidity-demanding. From a Minskyan perspective, money is not neutral; the price lists depend fundamentally on how much (and on what terms) money is being printed.

Finally, some questions about the international dimension of money. First, various questions related to exchange rates — how they are, and should be, determined, and what effects they have on real activity. This is one area— perhaps the only one on the whole list — where, it seems to me, there is a very clear difference between today’s textbook views and pre-Keynesian orthodoxy. Today, floating exchange rates are treated as normal, and government interventions in the foreign exchange market are viewed with suspicion. Whereas the older orthodoxy assumed that currencies should, and apart from exceptional cases would, be permanently fixed in terms of gold.
Twelfth: If we think of money as a ledger, does it matter where the ledger is kept? That the dollar is the global currency is true in obvious, observable ways — its unrivaled dominance in reserve holdings, foreign-exchange transactions, and trade pricing. (And despite constant predictions to the contrary, this shows no signs of changing.) But what constraints does this fact impose on the rest of the world, both in terms of international positions and domestic finance? And what, advantages (or disadvantages) does it have for the United States?

One argument (made powerfully by Jörg Bibow, and also in this old working paper by me) is that in a world of unmanaged cross-border trade and financial flows, the United States current account deficit plays an essential role as a source of dollar liquidity for the rest of the world — that efforts to balance US trade will only lead to slower growth elsewhere. The assumption here, which may or may not be reasonable, is that there is something like of an exogenous stock of global money, even if not at the national level.

A related issue is how the financial and current account sides of the balance of payments balance. If we think of money as a token or substance, then any given transaction involves a certain amount of it either flowing into or out of a country, and the need for these flows to equal out evidently calls for some kind of market mechanism. On the other hand, if we think of money as a ledger entry, then the mere fact that a transaction takes place automatically creates an offsetting entry on the financial account. There may well be ways in which, say, foreign demand for a country’s assets causes its trade balance to shift toward deficit. But the argument has to be made in behavioral terms, it is not necessarily true.

Finally, thirteen: What does it mean to possess monetary sovereignty? Is having control over your own money a binary, yes or no question, or does it exist on a continuum? A more concrete aspect of this question is under what conditions countries can set their own interest rates. The older view was that a floating exchange rate was sufficient; the newer view — among established as well as heterodox economists — is that autonomous monetary policy is only possible with limits on financial flows, i.e. capital controls. Otherwise, what happens to your interest rate depends on the Fed’s choices, not yours.

I have my own opinions about what are more and less convincing answers to these questions. But my goal is not to convince you, or my students, of the answers. My goal is to convince you that these are real questions.

One reason that arguments about money-related questions are so often so painful an inconclusive, it seems to me, is that people start out from strong commitments to particular answers to various of these questions, or questions like these, without even realizing that they are questions — that it is possible to take a view on the other side. Almost nobody who talks about “real GDP” pauses to ask what exactly this number refers to. That the interest rate is the price of liquidity — of money — is the pivot of Keynes’ whole argument in The General Theory. But it’s constantly ignored or forgotten by people who think of themselves as Keynesians. In general, it seems to me, debates connected with money are less often about disagreements on substantive issues than about different premises, which are seldom recognized or acknowledged. Before denouncing each other, before accusing people of some basic error of fact, let’s at least try to map out the intellectual terrain we are fighting over.

A second purpose of this list is to show how these are not just academic questions, but have important implications for our efforts to, in Haavelmo’s phrase, become masters the happenings of real life. To be sure, this post doesn’t do this. But it was a goal of the class. And it is very much a goal of the book.

View Details

Edward Biberman, Slow Curve, 1945.Books I read in 2023. I’m probably forgetting some.

Geoffrey Ingham, The Nature of Money. One of the fundamental divides in thinking about money is whether we start from the commodity or the unit of account. Do we begin, logically and historically, with the idea of exchange and then bring in money, or do we start from an abstract unit of measurement which then, among other things, is used to value commodities? The latter view defines what’s known as chartalism; Ingham offers the most persuasive statement of the chartalist position that I know. The most visible (though, it seems to me, fading) contemporary version of chartalism is the one offered by Modern Mone(tar)y Theory. There’s a clear affinity between Ingham and MMT but also some important differences; taking Mitchell Innes rather than Knapp as its starting point, Ingham’s version emphasizes money as a measure of obligations in general, rather than taxes specifically.

Like the next five books on the list, I read this one in as I worked on Money and Things, and in conjunction with the “Alternative Perspectives on Money” course I taught this fall.

Lev Menand, The Fed Unbound: Central Banking in a Time of Crisis. I am a big admirer of Menand’s writing on monetary policy and the Fed. He’s a good example of how many of the most interesting conversations around economics these days are happening in law schools. I am constantly pointing people to his short piece on the “The Fed’s Sole Mandate,” which does a brilliant job reframing debates around monetary policy. I would love to see that argument developed at book length. Unfortunately, this is not really that. The book falls a bit awkwardly between two sets of stools — between a general history of the Fed and a comment on pandemic-era interventions, on the one hand, and between a popularization and original argument on the other. I’m sympathetic – these are both tensions I also struggle with. (Despite some encouragement from me, Lev also has not been quite able to give up the idea of a definite quantity of money.) I will certainly continue to draw on and assign his work in the future, but I think I’ll look more to his law review articles rather than this book.

David McNally, Blood and Money: War, Slavery, Finance, and Empire. I would also put this in the broad category of chartalism, again emphasizing the role of money as an abstract unit of measurement rather than as a specific commodity. This is a more eclectic and Marx-influenced version, focusing on money as quantification as such rather than of obligations. The most importnat things being reduced to commensurable quantities, in McNally’s telling, are human bodies — for him, money is the obverse of slavery, and of coercive violence more broadly. The book’s title should be taken literally.

The historical material here makes an interesting complement to Ingham. Most chartalist writing, in my experience, draws from a relatively short list of historical parables — ancient Babylon, colonial Madagascar. Ingham mostly sticks to the canon, but McNally ranges more widely. As with many books of this kind (Graeber’s Debt is the notorious example) the analysis starts glitching a bit when the story reaches the modern world. It’s not surprising. When you are writing about a general topic like money or debt, there is nothing wrong with picking whatever particular examples from the vast palette of the past that work best for the picture you’re trying to paint. But when you are writing about recent history, you are stuck with the specific things that actually happened.

Stefan Eich, The Currency of Politics: The Political Theory of Money from Aristotle to Keynes. The subject of this book is the question — one which motivates so many debates about money — of how, and to what extent, the form and management of money shapes broader social relations. It’s the question of whether money is, in the broadest sense, neutral, or whether changes in the terms on which money is created can transform politics and relations of production. The book, to be clear, is not framed this way; it’s set up, rather as six distinct essays, on particular thinkers and milieus, from classical Athens through Locke, Fichte, Marx and Keynes to the “political theory of money after Bretton Woods.” As Colin Drumm suggests, the book is best understood (and perhaps read) backward. To make sense of current debates about money, we need to go back to the early 20th century Years of High Theory, and then back to the thinkers that influenced them, and on back to Aristotle. Personally, I learned the most from the Athens and Marx chapters; but the whole thing is very worth reading

Merijn Knibbe, Macroeconomic Measurement Versus Macroeconomic Theory. This is a book-length struggle with a question dear to my heart, the disconnect between the categories of economic theory and measurement. Concepts like output, employment, the price level or the capital stock can be defined unambiguously within a formal economic model. But when we use them to describe developments in the real world, their meaning depends on a whole host of specific decisions about what exactly to count, what to impute and where to draw various more or less arbitrary lines. The data we look at is highly sensitive to these choices — a full third of US consumption, for instance, consists of non cash items like the notional rent paid by homeowners to themselves, services provided gratis by nonprofits and government, and the notional value of financial services provided by low-interest bank accounts. Mainstream economists — and, I’m afraid to say, many heterodox ones — are blissfully unconcerned with these choices. But it is impossible to make any meaningful statements about real economies except in the terms that they are actually observed.

Many economists will acknowledge this problem in principle but Knibbe’s book is a rare attempt to address it head on. It is brilliant, perceptive and original, but also digressive, a bit of a ramble. One of its strengths is the author’s less academic background — he has a deep knowledge of topics, like exactly how milk prices are set in the Netherlands, that are not taught in any economics program. A challenge for any book like this is how much work it takes to explain the intricate fantasies of orthodox theory as a prelude to dismantling them; I don’t know what the solution to this problem is, if one is going to write critically about economics at all.

I provided comments on early chapters of the book, and at one point we discussed coauthoring it. That didn’t happen, obviously, but he did just fine on his own.

Anitra Nelson, Marx on Money: The God of Commodities. The most thorough and convincing account of Marx’s (incomplete and sometimes contradictory) writing on money that I have read. I won’t attempt to summarize Nelson’s arguments here; perhaps I’ll do so in a future post.

Enzo Traverso, Fire and Blood: The European Civil War 1914-1945. This book presents itself as a history of Europe’s second thirty years war. It is organized not chronologically but thematically, around various concepts that structured what Traverso presents as fundamentally an intra-European rather than international conflict — dual power, the partisan, the trauma of industrial violence, the new legal concept of war crimes, and so on. At its heart is an effort to reclaim anti-fascism as positive political project. Resistance to fascism required, and called forth, a creative fusion of socialist and Enlightenment values. Antifascism, in Traverso’s telling, was not merely a negative reaction to right-wing authoritarianism. It was a “civil religion of humanity, democracy and socialism”; it was “a “shared ethos that, in a historical context that was exceptional and necessarily transitory, made it possible to hold together Christians and atheist Communists, liberals and collectivists.” Traverso amasses a great range of historical, artistic and literary material to flesh out this view of antifascism as a positive political program. Anti-fascism is not just resistance to movement in the fascist direction; it is pressure for movement away from the status quo in the other direction. It’s a timely reminder that one cannot effectively defend democratic values and practices where they already exist without also fighting to extend them where they currently do not.

This is very much an intellectual history — personally, I wouldn’t have minded if Traverso had included a few less reproductions of paintings and introduced some quantitative material. Its antagonists are liberal historians — Francois Furet in particular — who see “the West” following a steady path toward liberal democracy as a kind of technical progress, with the violent conflicts between Left and Right as a friction or distraction. Traverso’s argument – not stated in so many words, but the overarching theme of the book — is that there was no technological inevitability to universal suffrage, civil liberties or the rest of it. Human progress, such as it is, is the result of active struggle. The battle against fascism yielded something quite different from a straight line projection from the years before 1914.

Luciano Canfora, Democracy in Europe. Another book by an Italian historian, developing many of the same themes as Traverso, though on a broader canvass. The central argument is that if democracy means “rule by the people,” then we should think of this not as an institution but an event, as the rare episodes in which the propertyless majority are able to collectively exercise power against the interests of the rich. Democracy, in his words, means “the temporary ascendancy of the poorer classes in the course of an endless struggle for equality”. Elections with broad suffrage are at best an enabling condition of democracy, not a definition of it. They create an arena in which the mass of people may sometimes be mobilized if the conditions are right. As Friedrich Engels put it, elections are important because they offer “a means to make contact with the masses where they are still distant from us,” not so much as a direct route to power.

By the late 19th century, Engels believed, democratic politics offered an open road toward socialism. In Canfora’s view, however, he underestimated the ability of elites to mobilize mass support for their own programs. The development of mass political participation in the early 20th century owed as much, he argues, to efforts by conservative government to inoculate the population against socialism, as to any advance of democratic values. Conservatives were nonetheless hostile to universal suffrage right down to World War One. The book quotes the British writer George Cornwall Lewis urging that “the attempt to attain perfect equality in … the powers of government seems … as absurd as the attempt to attain perfect equality in the distribution of property.” Canfora accepts this equivalence but turns it around — sustained equality in government has never been compatible with concentrated property ownership. Historically, expansion of formal democracy was either a step toward broader social equality, or a defense against it.

Like Traverso, Canfora emphasizes how “antifascism was widened from a negative concept — rejection — to a positive one. … the forces that had fought fascism … could by definition transform society in a progressive direction.” He sees a fundamental parallel between developments in eastern and western Europe after war. On both sides, the upheavals of war and and popular mobilizations created new opening for demands from the masses. In the immediate postwar period, governments gave ground to pressure from below both substantively and in terms of public participation; but as they became more established, genuine popular involvement was displaced by self-confirming legality. The relationship of the US to Italy was not fundamentally different from that of the USSR to Poland or Hungary, even if military intervention was only prepared and not carried out. To drive this point home, he notes that it was Churchill, not Stalin, who proposed the division of Europe into spheres of influence; while the latter, for his part, urged an acceptance of liberal norms by communists in Western Europe.

Moving to the present, Canfora firmly rejects the idea that the countries of “the West” are democratic simply by virtue of their electoral arrangements. At the same time he insists that changes to electoral systems are important for either narrowing or widening the possibilities for substantive democracy. In particular, he sees the shift from proportional representation to single-member districts or hybrid systems (as occurred in both France and Italy in recent decades) as a way of closing off space for democracy. In his view, steps away from proportional representation are no different from outright restrictions of the franchise. They “combine the electoral principle … with the reality of the protected ascendancy of the … upper classes.”

Rebecca Karl, Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth-Century World: A Concise History. This is a sympathetic but not uncritical account of Mao’s life and the surrounding history. One of the book’s big virtues — besides providing the basic narrative of events that I knew much less about than I should — is that its perspective is always the situation and context in which Mao himself operated. It tries to understand why he made the choices he did in the circumstances that he faced. This is partly a matter of how the book is written, but it also requires the writer (and reader) to be able to imagine themselves as part of the revolutionary project Mao was engaged in.

I learned a great deal from this book. Here are a few general points that stand out. First, Mao’s formative political experiences involved China’s political disintegration and subordination to outside powers and, interestingly, the subordination of women in the traditional Chinese family (the subject of his first significant political writings.) His embrace of class politics and Marxism came afterwards, as a response to the practical problems of national independence and revival. (And to the savage repression by the nationalists.) Second, despite being an early leader of the Communist Party, he was, in Karl’s telling, almost constantly in conflict with it. He never had the unquestioned authority of a Stalin, and for much of the period after 1960 or so he was effectively excluded from day to day leadership. The cult of personality — the Little Red Book and so on — were real enough, but they reflected relative marginalization rather than dominance; they arose from, on the one side, his efforts to pressure from the outside a government he no longer dominated, and from the other, the Party’s efforts to claim his legacy even while rejecting his positions substantively. Conversely, the “reforms” after his death don’t represent a repudiation of the Revolution so much as a reassertion of tendencies that were there all along. Third, Mao’s worst mistakes were in large part overreactions to correctly perceived problems with the Soviet model. The Great Leap Forward — disastrous as it was — is in no way comparable to the great famines under Stalin. It was the result rather of a search for a form of industrialization that would not favor the cities at the expense of the peasants. The problem was a breakdown in the systems of coordination, communication and transport rather than — as under Stalin — a systematic extraction of grain from the countryside. The Cultural Revolution, meanwhile, came from the conflicts between Mao and the party leadership mentioned earlier — it was intended by Mao as a revolution against the party, as an effort to prevent the consolidation of a new ruling class or stratum as he believed had happened in the USSR.

These broad brush summaries don’t do justice to the book, which is much more concrete and historically grounded. One question that it does not answer, however — that it does not even pose, given its choice to write largely from Mao’s own perspective — is, how and to what extent did the Chinese revolution lay the groundwork for China’s astonishing success — maybe the greatest in history — as a late industrializer. (Isabella Weber’s book, while also very good, only addresses a small part of this question.) But I still found it extremely informative and worth reading. One other virtue: it is very short. I would love to see more books in this format. There are a lot of big topics on which I would be happy to read 150 pages, but probably would not manage 700.

Fintan O’Toole, We Don’t Know Ourselves: A Personal History of Modern Ireland. A charming and very readable first-person account of Ireland since 1960, seamlessly interweaving historical and autobiographic material. When I picked this book up (at The Lofty Pigeon, a lovely new bookstore in my corner of Brooklyn) I knew a bit about the Irish war of independence and of course about the euro-era financial bubble and crisis, but but not much about the period in between. It’s a fascinating story — 20th century Ireland has to be one of the outstanding cases of cultural transformation in just a generation or two, from a closed semi-theocracy to a fully “modern” country, for better or worse. O’Toole has an appealing ambivalence about this transformation. He is unflinching in his descriptions of the stifling cruelty of mid-century Irish schools and the treatment of women who violated sexual norms; it’s interesting how, in his telling even features of this society that might seem appealing — big multi-generational families with neighbors constantly present — could seem oppressive to those living in it. But neither does he whitewash the Irish modernization project or the politicians who led it.

Edward Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham. A massive, comprehensive history of New York from the first European arrival to consolidation in 1898. I consumed this as an audiobook intermittently over the past year or so. Its episodic structure works well in that format, though not so much its profusion of names, dates, and places. (Someone should make a geographic concordance from it, if there isn’t one.) What is there to say about it? If you want to learn about the history of New York City, this is the book.

Adam Hochschild, American Midnight: The Great War, a Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis. A history of US politics and political repression in the period around and immediately after World War One. As Hochschild makes clear, nothing in Donald Trump’s dreams comes close to the institutionalized racism, nativism and criminalization of dissent under Woodrow Wilson. If you’ve read some labor history, you won’t be shocked at the stories of the violent suppression of the IWW. But what about the movie director sentenced to four years in prison for making a film about the American Revolution that depicted the British in too negative a light? Or the Swiss-born orchestra conductor whose lynching on suspicion of German sympathies was hailed by The Washington Post as a “healthful and wholesome awakening” of patriotic sentiment? Or the mass roundups of young men suspected of evading the draft by vigilante squads? It’s an important reminder that fascism is a long-established and central strand in American politics, not something introduced by Trump or Newt Gingrich.

Johannes Krause and Thomas Trappe, A Short History of Humanity: A New History of Old Europe. I enjoy books about ancient history and paleantology, especially ones that, like this one, are as much about how we know what we know, as about what we do know. The specific focus here is the new information from the reconstruction of genomes from ancient human remains, something that has only recently become possible; one of the authors is a pioneer in the technique. There is a rather serious problem, which is visible in the juxtaposition of the title and subtitle: Europe and humanity are quite different things. (The authors are hardly the only ones to have trouble remembering this.) Still, it’s fascinating how much detail is now known about ancient population movements.

Thomas Lin, ed., Alice and Bob Meet the Wall of Fire. Essays from online science magazine Quanta. I enjoy their podcasts, but this collection was underwhelming. This is the one book on this list that I do not recommend.

Abdelrahman Munif, The Trench and Variations of Night and Day. These are the second and third novels in the Cities of Salt trilogy telling the story of a fictional gulf monarchy over the first half of the 20th century. (At least, it’s a trilogy in English; I believe there are further volumes that haven’t been translated.) I wrote a bit about these books at the end of this post.

Annie Ernaux, A Man’s Place. A short, beautiful book about the author’s father, about class, education and the the distance between the center and the periphery, and about the irreversible passage of time. It’s one of those in-between-genres books that gets shelved with the novels in France and with memoirs in the United States.

Roberto Bolaño, By Night in Chile. An allegory of the position of intellectuals under right-wing dictatorships, how you simultaneously know and don’t know what is going on — metaphorically, but in the allegory literally — beneath the floors of your literary get-togethers. It’s the story of a well-meaning priest, “the most liberal member of Opus Dei in Chile,” who, improbably … well, I won’t spoil it.

Natalie Ginsburg, The Dry Heart; Happiness, as Such; and Voices in the Evening. Sad, occasionally political, and very occasionally violent family conflicts in small-town Italy from the 1940s through the 1960s. They are good.

Previous editions:

2020 books

2019 books

2017 Books

2016 books

2015 books

2013 books

2012 books I

2012 books II

2010 books I

2010 books II

View Details

I’ve been using some of Stefan Eich’s The Currency of Politics in the graduate class I’m teaching this semester.(I read it last year, after seeing a glowing mention of it by Adam Tooze.) This week, we talked about his chapter on Marx, which reminded me that I wrote some notes on it when I first read it. I thought it might be worthwhile turning them into a blogpost, incorporating some points that came out in the discussion in today’s class.

Eich begins with one commonly held idea of Marx’s views of money: that he was “a more or less closeted adherent of metallism who essentially accepted … gold-standard presumptions” — specifically, that the relative value of commodities is prior to whatever we happen to use for units of account and payments, that the value of gold (or whatever is used for money) is determined just like that of any other commodity, and that changes to the monetary system can’t have any effects on real activity (or at least, only disruptive ones). Eich’s argument is that while Marx’s theoretical views on money were more subtle and complex than this, he did share the operational conclusion that monetary reform was a dead end for political action. In Eich’s summary, while at the time of the Manifesto Marx still believed in a public takeover of the banking system as part of a socialist program, by the the 1860s he had come to believe that “any activist monetary policy to alter the level of investment, let alone … shake off exploitation, was futile.”

Marx’s arguments on money of course developed in response to the arguments of Proudhon and similar socialists like Robert Owen. For these socialists (in Eich’s telling; but it seems right to me) scarcity of gold and limits on credit were “obstacles to reciprocal exchange,” preventing people from undertaking all kinds of productive activity on a cooperative basis and creating conditions of material scarcity and dependence on employers. “A People’s Bank,” as Eich writes channeling Proudhon, “was the only way to guarantee the meaningfulness of the right to work.” Ordinary people are capable of doing much more socially useful (and remunerative) work than whatever jobs they were offered. But under the prevailing monopoly of credit, we have no way to convert our capacity to work into access to the means of production we would need to realize it.

Why, we can imagine Proudhon asking, do you need to work for a boss? Because he owns the factory. And why does he own the factory? Is it because only he had the necessary skills, dedication, and ambition to establish it? No, of course not. It’s because only he had the money to pay for it. Democratize money, and you can democratize production.

Marx turned this around. Rather than money being the reason why a small group of employers control the means of production, it is, under capitalism, simply an expression of that fact. And if we are going to attribute this control to a prior monopoly, it should be to land and the productive forces of nature, not money. The capitalist class inherits its coercive power from the landlord side of its family tree, not the banker side.

In Marx’s view, Proudhon had turned the fundamental reality of life under capitalism — that people are free to exchange their labor power for any other commodity — into an ideal. He attributed the negative consequences of organizing society around market exchange to monopolies and other deviations from it. (This is a criticism that might also be leveled against many subsequent reformers, including the ”market socialists” of our own time.)

That labor time is the center of gravity for prices is not a universal fact about commodities. It is a tendency — only a tendency — under capitalism specifically, as a result of several concrete social developments. First, again, production is carried out by wage labor. Second, wage labor is deskilled, homogenized, proletarianized. The equivalence of one hour of anyone’s labor for one hour of anyone else’s is a sociological fact reflecting that fact that workers really are interchangeable. Just as important, production must be carried out for profit, because capitalists compete both in the markets for their product and for the means of production. It is the objective need for them to produce at the lowest possible cost, or else cease being capitalists, that ensures that production is carried out with the socially necessary labor time and no more.

The equivalence of commodities produced by the same amount of labor is the result of proletarianization on the one side and the hard budget constraint on the other. The compulsion of the market, enforced by the “artificial” scarcity of money, is not an illegitimate deviation from the logic of equal exchange but its precondition. The need for money plays an essential coordinating function. This doesn’t mean that no other form of coordination is possible. But if you want to dethrone money-owners from control of the production process, you have to first create another way to organize it.

So one version of Marx’s response to Proudhon might go like this. In a world where production was not organized on capitalist lines, we could still have market exchange of various things. But the prices would be more or less conventional. Productive activity, on the other side, would be embedded in all kinds of other social relationships. We would not have commodities produced for sale by abstract labor, but particular use values produced by particular forms of activity carried out by particular people. Given the integration of production with the rest of life, there would be no way to quantitatively compare the amount of labor time embodied in different objects of exchange; and even if there were, the immobility of embedded labor means there would be no tendency for prices to adjust in line with those quantities. The situation that Proudhon is setting up as the ideal — prices corresponding to labor time, which can be freely exchanged for commodities of equal value — reflects a situation where labor is already proletarianized. Only when workers have lost any social ties to their work, and labor has been separated from the rest of life, does labor time become commensurable.

In the real world, the owners of the means of production have harnessed all our collective efforts into the production of commodities by wage labor for sale in the market, in order to accumulate more means of production – that is to say, capital. In this world, and only in this world, quantitative comparisons in terms of money must reflect the amount of labor required for production. Changes to the money system cannot change these relative values. At the same time, it’s only the requirement to produce for the market that ensures that one hour of labor really is equivalent to any other. Proudhon’s system of labor chits, in which anyone who spent an hour doing something could get a claim on the product of an hour of anyone else’s labor, would destroy the equivalence that the chits are supposed to represent. (A similar criticism might be made of job guarantee proposals today.)

For the mature Marx, money is merely “the form of appearance of the measure of value which is immanent in commodities, namely labor time.” There is a great deal to unpack in a statement like this. But the conclusion that changes in the quantity or form of money can have no effect on relative prices does indeed seem to be shared with the gold-standard orthodoxy of his time (and of ours).

The difference is that for Marx, that quantifiable labor time was not a fact of nature. People’s productive activities become uniform and homogeneous only as work is proletarianized, deskilled, and organized in pursuit of profit. It is not a general fact about exchange. Money might be neutral in the sense of not entering into the determination of relative prices, which are determined by labor time. But the existence of money is essential for there to be relative prices at all. The possibility of transforming authority over particular production processes into claims on the social product in general is a precondition for generalized wage labor to exist.

While Marx does look like commodity money theorist in some important ways, he shared with the credit-money theorists, and greatly developed, the idea — mostly implicit until then — that the productive capacities of a society are not something that exist prior to exchange, but develop only through the generalization of monetary exchange. Much more than earlier writers, or than Keynes and later Keynesians, he foregrounded the qualitative transformation of society that comes with the organization of production around the pursuit of money.

You could get much of this from any number of writers on Marx. What is a bit more distinctive in the Eich chapter is the links he makes between the theory and Marx’s political engagement. When Marx was writing his critique of Proudhon’s monetary-reform proposals in the 1840s, Eich observes, he and Engels still believed that public ownership of the banks was an important plank in the socialist program. Democratically-controlled banks would “make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interest of the people as a whole, and … undermine the dominion of the great money men. Further, by gradually substituting paper money for gold and silver coin, the universal means of exchange … will be cheapened.” At this point they still held out the idea that public credit could both alleviate monetary bottlenecks on production and be a move toward the regulation of production “according to the general interest of society as represented in the state.”

By the 1850s, however, Marx had grown skeptical of the relevance of money and banking for a socialist program. In a letter to Engels, he wrote that the only way forward was to “cut himself loose from all this ‘money shit’”; a few years later, he said, in an address to the First International, that “the currency question has nothing at all to do with the subject before us.” In the Grundrisse he asked rhetorically, “Can the existing relations of production and the relations of distribution which correspond to them be revolutionized by a change in the instrument of circulation…? Can such a transformation be undertaken without touching the existing relations of production and social relations which rest on them?” The answer, obviously, is No.

The reader of Marx’s published work might reasonably come away with something like this understanding of money: Generalized use of money is a precondition of wage labor, and leads to qualitative transformations of human life. But control over money is not the source of capitalists’ power, and the logic of capitalism doesn’t depend on the specific workings of the financial system. To understand the sources of conflict and crises under capitalism, and its transformative power and development over time, one should focus on the organization of production and the hierarchical relationships within the workplace. Capitalism is essentially a system of hierarchical control over labor. Money and finance are at best second order.

Eich doesn’t dispute this, as a description of what Marx actually he wrote.. But he argues that this rejection of finance as a site of political action was based on the specific conditions of the times. Today, though, the power and salience of organized labor has diminished. Meanwhile, central banks are more visible as sites of power, and the allocation of credit is a major political issue. A Marx writing now, he suggests, might take a different view on the value of monetary reform to a socialist program. I’m not sure, though, if this is a judgment that many people inspired by Marx would share.

View Details

UPDATE: Aaron Benanav was sick and tested positive for covid the day of the event. So it didn’t take place. A fitting reminder, perhaps, of the context in which these debates are happening.

This Wednesday, John Jay College is hosting a debate between me and Aaron Benanav on, ostensibly, industrial policy and global overcapacity, whatever that means.

This is an event I agreed to participate in very reluctantly. To be honest, the prospect of it has been causing me considerable stress and anxiety lately. As a way of relieving this, I thought I would try to articulate why this is a conversation I don’t want to have.

1. I don’t like polemics, especially with others on the left. Doug Henwood used to quote a line from Foucault, which unfortunately I cannot locate at the moment, on the dangers of approaching intellectual debates on the model of war. I feel this strongly. We all know how unpleasant social media discussions become when everything gets reduced to which side you are on.

This is not some new development with social media. Alexander Cockburn tells this story about Lenin:

Krupskaya once tried to get him out of Zurich to take the day off, relaxing in the Alps and admiring nature. He tried but stayed fidgety, finally crying out to Krupskaya in exasperation, ‘Those bloody Mensheviks spoil everything.’

It’s very easy, once you’ve picked a side, to let those bloody other-siders spoil everything. I know I am susceptible to that tendency, I’ve given in to it too much in the past. So I’d rather avoid settings that encourage the picking of teams. I don’t like the debate format. I don’t like being on “Team Keynes” against “Team Brenner,” or however this is supposed to line up.

If one is going to have a debate, it should be with someone you respect, with a view that you can imagine holding, or perhaps have held in the past. Better than a debate is a conversation, with people whose ideas may be in tension at various points but who are genuinely interested in learning from each other. A public debate in front of an audience, by contrast, is a sort of combat where the goal is negative critique, tearing down, rather than synthesis.

2. I don’t find the overcapacity argument coherent enough to try to refute it. I’ve read a lot of Brenner’s stuff, it’s all over the map. I’ve read some of Benanav. The affect is clear enough: He really hates Keynesians. But as for a set of substantive claims about observable social reality, I don’t see it. Very smart people like Seth Ackerman and Alex Williams and Tim Barker have tried to engage with them, without much success. Experience suggests that trying to extract a coherent meaning of overcapacity to engage with will just provoke a response of “that’s not what we meant.” Debating this non-argument feels like wrestling with a cloud.

3. I don’t think that the kind of knowledge that both Brenner-Benanav and their critics are aspiring to is even possible. I don’t think the position they are taking can be replaced with a better one; the question is just not a useful one.

What I mean is this. Capitalism, or better, capital, is a game, an activity that people engage in. It has its rules, its values, its categories. Understanding its logic is important. But logic, on the level of logic, only tells us about the parameters, the dimensions, of capitalist space. It tells us nothing about what will actually happen. At best it allows us to identify tendencies, all of which have their counter-tendencies. The logic of capital tells us which ways the system can move, but nothing about how it has moved, or will move. When we turn to explaining concrete historical developments — retrospectively or prospectively — we need to do so in concrete historical terms. If we ask, let us say, why employment growth was slower in most European countries in the 1980s and 1990s compared with the 1960s and 1970s, there are a number of possible factors that might contribute, or point in the other direction. The only possible answer to the question will be a quantitative one, asking how much various factors contributed in this particular period. General tendencies of capitalism tell us nothing at all.

The academic work I feel best about is a couple of papers asking, in a concrete historical way, how we explain the changes in household debt-income ratios over the past 100 years The answers turn out to be different in different periods. The interesting thing, to me, is the key takeaway that the rise in the debt ratio in the 1980-2008 period, versus the stable ratio in the previous 20 years, is entirely explained by higher interest rates plus lower inflation. But the methodology — and this is the critical point — also reveals plenty of exceptions. During the mid 2000s, for instance, it really is true that households were borrowing more. If we want to learn about the world, we need a method of asking questions that gives answers of the form “x percent this, but also y percent that”, or “in this period mostly this, but in that period mostly that,” or “this factor was supporting the overall trend but that factor was retarding it.” These are all quantitative statements, and will be different depending on the place and time we are discussing. If you think you can reason in a purely logical way to concrete historical outcomes, you aren’t talking about the real world.

4. Continuing from 3 — to have a useful discussion, the questions have to be reframed as concrete, operational ones. Public spending on green energy will improve the bargaining power of workers, or it won’t. Chinese investment in renewable energy has reduced, or increased, manufacturing investment in the rest of the world by this much, more or less. Some more or less concretely specified central bank policy to favor green investment could reduce carbon emissions by some amount, or more, or less. Until we frame our questions in this sort of way, with answers that are numbers or clear yes-or-nos, there is nothing useful to talk about. We need to debate principles in such a way that we are learning about concrete reality. I don’t see this debate as a step towards that.

5. I am not convinced that the phenomenon of “stagnation” or “overcapacity” exists. It is true that by most measures growth appears to have been stronger in Europe in the decades after World War II than, to the extent we have comparable measures, in most other times and places. But it is not at all clear that the absence of this outstanding performance should be described as a distinct phenomenon of “stagnation” or “overcapacity”. Maybe we should instead ask what combination of institutional factors created this exceptional case. Nor is it clear that the same pattern exists if we broaden our focus — China, in the decades of so-called stagnation, has seen what is probably the greatest episode of capitalist accumulation in human history. (The problems that China poses for the Brenner argument need more attention than I am in a position to give.)

And even if “stagnation” is valid as a descriptive historical fact, it doesn’t follow that it represents any underlying tendency. Let’s say we are in the US in 1935. Why is business investment so low, why are so many people unemployed? “Because it’s a depression” would be true in a certain descriptive sense. But, obviously, as an explanation it would get us nowhere at all. I’m not convinced that talking about overcapacity today is much different from that.

Admittedly, the question of whether some capitalist economies can be described as experiencing stagnation (and which ones, and over what period) is a concrete, empirically-tractable question, in a way that some inherent tendency toward stagnation is not. But the claim would have to be much more precisely specified before it could be disputed. And clearly neither of us is undertaking the sort of detailed, data-based analysis that would be called for.

6. Benanav’s response to my blog post — it really was just a blog post — was dishonest and insulting. It still pisses me off that I can write, as I did, “leftists should not imagine that we control the state,” and get quoted as saying “we control the state.” It annoys me that I can suggest an analogy between the transition way from carbon and the industrial revolution and get this response: “any such comparison between the 1840s—an era of incipient French industrialization—and contemporary overcapacity, following the onset of the demand shift over a century later, is so ahistorical as to border on the absurd.” I mean, what is this? Ahistorical, absurd? Come on man. Industrialization wasn’t just a random bolt from the blue, it was the result of exactly the kind of positive feedback mechanisms I was talking about.

This blithe dismissal is simply a refusal to engage with the argument. I was trying to introduce something interesting into the conversation — is anyone else writing about the Green New Deal quoting 19th century French historians? And this guy, who is supposed to be some kind of social scientist, just pisses on it. I won’t pretend it doesn’t annoy me.

7. I have other work to do. I am trying to finish this book. I am trying to teach. (My teaching is bad, but my students are excellent.) I am trying to write opinion pieces for a general public; perhaps people will read them. All of that seems more important than this thing.

8. Finally the biggest one. The debate objectively places me in the position of a defender of the Biden Administration, something that, at this moment, I have no desire to be. Maybe, if I’m honest, this is the real reason why I am so angry about having to do this debate. Thousands of children are dead and dying under the rubble of Gaza. The bombs that killed them are marked “Made in USA.” Will I, under these circumstances, stand up and defend Bidenomics? No, I will not.

As an analytic matter, it’s certainly possible to separate the general case for industrial policy from the murderous regime that is currently its standard bearer. But in the specific context of the United States in November 2023, I don’t know that you can. Maybe my anger at Benanav, and at my colleagues who pushed me to debate him, is really anger at myself for having associated myself with a regime of child-killers. This is a possibility I must take seriously. It calls for resolute self-criticism and introspection.

There is a very complex and difficult problem here. We must sometimes take a clear stand on principle, we must stand against fascism and genocide. We must also, all the time, make an honest assessment of existing conditions, and what we can do in the concrete circumstances we find ourselves in. We must recognize that the path to a better world consists of one step after another, and starts from where we currently are.

Sometimes these two principles are consistent, sometimes they are not. It can be hard to figure out how to reconcile them. We do have to figure it out. I would be very interested in a roundtable on how socialists should relate to the state and established parties in the current moment. But one — or at least I — would have to approach it in a spirit of uncertainty, questioning and an openness to learning from others. Not a debate between opposing sides.

However: John Jay economics is a great program! And we need students! So please do come out for this thing, and, if you’re at a suitable stage of life, please apply to our graduate program. Someday, maybe you will get all this stuff right, where I clearly have not.

View Details

I’ve been struggling to find something to say about the unfolding horror in Gaza. What is happening there is not war, but murder on an industrial scale. It is a conscious effort to bring about the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of human beings, and to permanently drive millions from their homes. It is the deliberate destruction of a whole society. And it is happening in full view of the world, with the enthusiastic support of the governments of the United States and most of Europe. We can’t look away from this. We have to say something, whether or not our words have any effect.

But I think they can have an effect. Israel depends on support — material and moral — from the US, and from other countries whose governments are more or less vulnerable to public pressure. (Perhaps it’s less dependent than it used to be, but less does not mean not at all.) Right now they have a free hand, but they won’t forever. Public opinion is clearly shifting, and the costs to other governments of their complicity are growing. There is a limited window within which the killing and displacement can continue, a window whose size depends on world opinion. Anyone with a public platform, however small, can try to help close it. The most important thing now is to demand an immediate ceasefire by Israel. If you can say that anywhere where people will hear you, then, in my opinion, that’s what you should say.

So I was very glad to see the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) put out a statement on Gaza that begins by expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people, and calls for an immediate ceasefire as its first demand. URPE is as far as you can get from being an important geopolitical player. But it’s my own professional home, so it matters to me, and I’m sure to a number of readers of this. It’s also an organization founded on the principle that economists and social scientists cannot be dispassionate technicians and observers, but have a responsibility to take sides in the struggles of our times. It’s good to see that, after some initial hesitation, they lived up that commitment here.

The statement is below. It’s a good statement. I endorse all of it.

We stand in unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people. Since October 7th, 2023, over two million people have faced a brutal onslaught by the Israeli military and state. They have been forced to flee with nowhere to go as homes, shelters, evacuation routes, border crossings, hospitals, places of worship and entire neighborhoods have been bombed.

We mourn civilian deaths in both Israel and Palestine. Israel’s retaliation for the October 7th incursion continues, however, and over 9,000 Palestinians have been killed in the ongoing assault so far. The estimated number of children among the casualties is over 3,000 and UNICEF estimates that about 420 children have been killed or wounded daily. Even reporters have been threatened with violence or killed.

Since the Nakba 75 years ago, the Palestinian people have endured profound suffering, forced displacement, and a brutal 16-year-long inhumane siege and blockade in Gaza. Human rights organizations have characterized Gaza as ‘the largest open-air prison’.

We also condemn the role of the U.S. state in supporting the ongoing siege in Palestine, its support for the horrors inflicted on Gaza, and its refusal to support a humanitarian ceasefire. It is imperative that we do not turn our backs on the devastating impact of this violence on people’s lives. The fight for Palestinian liberation and a fair, enduring peace in the region is intricately linked with the liberation and resistance efforts spearheaded by indigenous, colonized, and oppressed communities historically and worldwide.

We stand in support of efforts by the Palestinian people to sustain themselves economically through control over their land and their labor. We stand in solidarity with the anti-Zionist Jewish communities that have been raising their voices against the carpet bombing of Gaza, for the liberation of the Palestinian people, and who are working for a just, equitable, and durable peace.

We urgently call for:

(1) An immediate ceasefire

(2) Immediate restoration of food, fuel, water, and electricity to the Gaza Strip

(3) Cessation of all settlement activity and disarmament of all settlers

(4) Immediate delivery of humanitarian aid on the scale required

(5) Respect towards the Geneva Conventions by all parties concerned

(6) An end to apartheid and strident moves toward a democratic future for all people regardless of race, religion, gender identity and nationality

In addition, we strongly uphold the principle of academic freedom, especially in light of the current global climate where individuals in educational institutions worldwide face termination, doxing, and harassment for speaking up against the atrocities of the Israeli state and in support of the civilian population in Gaza. Neglecting this commitment would be a betrayal of our scholarly and moral obligations.

View Details

Of the usefulness of the concept, that is.1

In my comments on inflation, I’ve emphasized supply disruptions more than market power. But as I’ll explain in this post, I think the market power or profiteering frame is also a valid and useful one.

Thanks in large part to Lindsay Owens and her team at the Groundwork Collaborative, the idea that corporate profiteering is an important part of today’s inflation is getting a surprising amount of traction, including from the administration. So it’s no surprise that it’s attracted some hostile pushback. This sneering piece by Catherine Rampell in the Washington Post is typical, so let’s start from there.

For critics like Rampell, the profiteering claim isn’t just wrong, but “conspiracy theory”, vacuous and incoherent:

The theory goes something like this: The reason prices are up so much is that companies have gotten “greedy” and are conspiring to “pad their profits,” “profiteer” and “price-gouge.” No one has managed to define “profiteering” and “price-gouging” more specifically than “raising prices more than I’d like.”

The problem with this narrative is that it’s just a pejorative tautology. Yes, prices are going up because companies are raising prices. Okay. This is the economic equivalent of saying “It’s raining because water is falling from the sky.”

The interesting thing about the profiteering story, to me, is precisely that it’s not a tautology. As a matter of logic, one might just as easily say “prices are going up because consumers are paying more.” It is not an axiomatic truth that businesses are who decide on prices. It is not a feature of textbook economics (where firms are price takers) nor is it an empirically true of all markets. As for profiteering, there is a straightforward definition — price increases that don’t reflect any change in the costs of production. Both economically and in the common-sense morality that terms like “price gouging” appeal to, there’s a distinction between price increases that reflect higher costs and ones that do not. And there’s nothing novel or strange about policies to limit the latter.

These two points are related. If prices were set straightforwardly as a markup over marginal costs, it wouldn’t make sense to say that “companies are raising prices.” And there wouldn’t be any question of price-gouging. The starting point here is, that’s not necessarily how prices are set. And once we agree that prices are a decision variable for firms, rather than an automatic market outcome, it’s not obvious why there shouldn’t be a public interest in how that decision gets made.

Think about water. It’s a commonplace that big increases in the price of bottled water in a disaster zone should not be allowed. The marginal cost of selling a bottle of water already on the shelf is no higher than in normal times. Nor are high prices for bottled water serving a function as signals — the premise is precisely that the quantity available is temporarily fixed. And everyone agrees that in these settings, willingness to pay is not a good measure of need.

What about water in normal times? In most of the United States, piped water is provided by local government. But in some places, it is provided by private water companies. And in those cases, invariably, its price is tightly regulated by a public utility commission, with price increases limited to cases where an increase in costs has been established. According to this recent GAO report, states with private water utilities all “rely on the same standard formula … to set private for-profit water rates. The formula relies on the actual costs of the utility …. including capital invested in its facilities, operations and maintenance costs, taxes, and other adjustments.”

The principle in these types of regulations — which, again, are ubiquitous and uncontroversial — is that in the real world prices may or may not track costs of production. Price increases that reflect higher costs are legitimate, and should be permitted; ones that do not are not, and should not.

Rent control is very controversial, both among economists and the general public. But I have never heard “water rate control” brought up as an example of an illegitimate government interference in the market, or seen a study of how much more water would be provided if utilities could charge what the market would bear. (Maybe some enterprising young economist will take that on.)

The same goes for many other public utilities — electricity, gas, and so on. Here in New York, a utility that wants to raise its electricity rates has to submit a filing to the Public Service Commission documenting the its operating and capital costs; if the proposed increase doesn’t reflect the company’s costs, it is not allowed. Obviously this isn’t so simple in practice, and the system certainly has its critics. But the point is, no one thinks that electricity — an industry that combines very high fixed costs, concentration and very inelastic demand, and which is an essential input to all kinds of other activity — is something where prices can be left to the market.

So the the question is not: Should prices be regulated or controlled? Nor is it whether some price increases are unreasonable. The answers to those questions are obviously, uncontroversially Yes. The question is whether the price regulation of utilities, and the economic analysis behind it, should be extended to other areas, or to prices in general.

People like Rampell are not thinking in terms of our world of production by large organizations using specialized tools and techniques. They are imagining an Econ 101 world where there is a fixed stock of stuff, and the market price is the one where people just want to buy that much. There are, to be sure, cases where this is a reasonable first approximation — used car dealers, say. But it is not a good description of most of the economy. Markets are not allocating a given stock of stuff, but guiding production. This production is carried out by large enterprises with substantial market power. They are not price takers. For most goods and services, price is a decision variable for producers, involving tradeoffs on a number of margins.2

In the models taught in introductory microeconomics, producers are price takers; they choose a quantity of output which they will sell at the going price. Given rising marginal costs — each additional unit of output costs more to produce than the last one — firms will carry out production just to the point where marginal cost equals the market price. This model is in principle consistent with the existence of fixed as well as marginal costs: Free entry and exit ensures that revenue at the market price just covers fixed costs, plus the normal profit (whatever that is).

The usual situation in a modern economy, however, is flat or declining marginal costs. Non-increasing marginal costs, nonzero fixed costs, and competitive pricing cannot coexist: In the absence of increasing marginal costs, a price equal to marginal cost leaves nothing to cover fixed costs. Modern industries, which invariably involve substantial fixed costs and flat or declining marginal costs at normal levels of output, require some degree of monopoly power in order to survive. This is the economic logic behind patents and copyrights — developing a new idea is costly, but disseminating it is cheap. So if we are relying on private businesses for this, they must be granted some degree of monopoly.3

The problem is, once we agree that some degree of market power is necessary in order for industries without declining returns to cover their fixed costs, how do we know how much market power is enough? Too much market power, and firms can make super-normal profits by holding prices above the level required to cover their costs, reducing access to whatever social useful thing they supply. Too little market power, and competing firms will be inefficiently small, drive each other to bankruptcy, or simply decline to enter, depriving society of the useful thing entirely. Returning to the IP example: To the extent that copyrights and patents serve an economic function, it is possible for them to be either too long or too short.

The problem gets worse when we think about what fixed costs men concretely. On the one hand, the decision to pay for a particular long-lived means of production is irreversible and taken in historical time; producers don’t know in advance whether their margins over costs of production will be enough to recoup the outlay. But on the other hand, the form these costs take is financial: A company has, typically, borrowed to pay for its plant, equipment and intellectual property; the concrete ongoing costs it faces are debt service payments. These may change after the fact, by, for example, being discharged in bankruptcy — which does not in general prevent the firm from continuing to operate. So there may be a very wide space between a price high enough to induce new firms to enter and a price low enough to induce existing firms to exit.

In addition, concerns over market share, public opinion, financing constraints, strategic interaction with competitors and other considerations mean that the price chosen within this space will not necessarily be the one that maximizes short-term profits (to the extent that this can even be known.) A lower price might allow a firm to gain market share, but risk retaliation from competitors. A higher price might allow for increased payments to shareholders, but risk a backlash from regulators or bad press. Narrowly economic factors may set some broad limits to pricing, but within them there is a broad range for strategic choices by sellers.

These issues were central to economic debates around the turn of the last century, particularly in the context of railroads. In the second half of the 19th century, railroads were the overwhelmingly dominant industrial businesses. And they clearly did not fit the models of competitive producers pricing according to marginal cost that the economics profession was then developing.

Railroads provided an essential function, for which there were no good alternatives. A single line on a given route had an effective monopoly, while two lines in parallel were almost perfect substitutes. The largest part of costs were fixed. But on the other hand, a firm that failed to meet its fixed costs would see its debt discharged in bankruptcy and then continue operating under new ownership. The result was cycles of price gouging and ruinous competition, in which farmers and small businesses could (much of the time) reasonably complain that they were being crushed by rapacious railroad owners, and railroads could (some of the time) reasonably complain they were being driven to the wall by cutthroat competition. Or as Alfred Chandler puts it,

Railroad competition presented an entirely new business phenomenon. Never before had a very small number of very large enterprises competed for the same business. And never before had competitors been saddled with such high fixed costs. In the 1880s fixed costs…averaged two-thirds of total cost. The relentless pressure of such costs quickly convinced railroad managers that uncontrolled competition of through traffic would be “ruinous”. As long as a road had cars available to carry freight, the temptation to attract traffic by reducing rates was always there. … To both the railroad managers and investors, the logic of such competition would be bankruptcy for all.4

As Michael Perelman explains in his excellent books The End of Economics and Railroading Economics (from which the following quotes are drawn), the problem of the railroads was the problem for the first generation of American professional economists. As these economists were developing models in which prices set in competitive markets would guarantee both a rational allocation of society’s resources and a normatively fair distribution of incomes, it was clear that in the era’s dominant industry, market prices did not work at all.

Already in the 1870s, Charles Francis Adams could observe:

The traditions of political economy,…notwithstanding, there are functions of modern life, the number of which is also continually increasing, which necessarily partake in their essence of the character of monopolies…. Now it is found that, whenever this characteristic exists, the effect of competition is not to regulate cost or equalize production, but under a greater or less degree of friction to bring about combination and a closer monopoly. This law is invariable. It knows no exceptions.

Arthur Hadley, an early president of the American Economic Association, made a similar argument. Where railroads competed, prices fell to a level that was too low to recover fixed costs, eventually sending one or both lines into bankruptcy. In the absence of competition, railroads could charge monopoly prices, which might be much higher than fixed costs. Equating prices to marginal costs made sense in an economy of small farmers or artisans. But in industries where most costs took the form of large, irreversible investments in fixed capital, there was no automatic process that would bring prices in line with costs. In Perelman’s summary:

In order to attract new capital into the business, rates must be high enough to pay not merely operating expenses, but fixed charges on both old and new capital. But, when capital is once invested, it can afford to make rates hardly above the level of operating expenses rather than lose a given piece of business. This “fighting rate” may be only one-half or one-third of a rate which would pay fixed charges. Based on his knowledge of the railroads, [Hadley] concluded that “survival of the fittest is only possible when the unfittest can be physically removed—a thing which is impossible in the case of an unfit trunk line.”

Perelman continues:

The root of the problem, for Hadley, was that to build a new line, owners had to expect rates high enough to cover not only the costs of operating it but the costs of constructing it, the financing charges, and a premium for risk; while to continue running an existing line, rates only had to cover operating costs. And these costs were essentially invariant to the volume of traffic on the line.

Or as John Bates Clark put it in 1901: “There is often a considerable range within which trusts can control prices without calling potential competition into positive activity.”

These were some of the leading figures in the economics profession around the turn of the century, so it’s striking how unambiguously they rejected the Marshallian orthodoxy of equilibrium prices. When the American Economics Association met for the first time, its proposed statement of principles included the line: “While we recognize the necessity of individual initiative in industrial life, we hold that the doctrine of laissez-faire is unsafe in politics and unsound in morals.” Politically, they were not socialists or radicals. They rejected competitive markets, but not private ownership. That however left the question, how should prices be regulated?

For a conservative economist like Hadley, the answer was social norms:

This power [of the trusts] is so great that it can only be controlled by public opinion—not by statute…. There are means enough. Don’t let him come to your house. Disqualify him socially. You may say that it is not an operative remedy. This is a mistake. Whenever it is understood that certain practices are so clearly against public need and public necessity that the man who perpetrates them is not allowed to associate on even terms with his fellow men, you have in your hands an all-powerful remedy.

Unfortunately, in practice, the withholding of dinner party invitations is not always an operative remedy.

In principle, there are many other ways to solve the problem. Intellectually, one can assume it away by simply insisting on declining returns to scale; or one can allow constant returns but have firms rent the services of undifferentiated capital, so there are no fixed costs. If the problem is not assumed away — a more practical option for theorists than for policymakers — it could in principle be solved by somehow ensuring that producers enjoy just the right degree of monopoly. This is what patents and copyrights are presumably supposed to do. Another possible answer is to say that where competition is not possible, that is an activity that should be carried out by the public. That was, of course, where urban rail systems ended up. For someone like Oskar Lange, it was a decisive argument for socializing production more broadly.5

Alternatively, one can accept cartels or monopolies (perhaps under the tutelage of dominant banks) in the hopes that social pressure or norms will limit prices, or on the grounds that a useful service provided at monopoly prices is still better than it not being provided at all. This was, broadly, the view of figures like Hadley, Ely and Clark, and arguably a big part of how things worked out.

But the main resolution to the problem, at least in the case of railroads, came from the increasing public pressure to regulate prices. The Interstate Commerce Commission was established to regulate railroad rates in 1887; its authority was initially limited, and it faced challenges from hostile Gilded-Age courts. But it was strengthened over the ensuing decades. The guiding principle was that rates should be high enough to cover a railroad’s full costs and a reasonable return, but no higher. This required railroads, among other things, to adopt more systematic and consistent accounting for capital costs.

Indeed, there’s a sense in which the logic of Langean socialism describes much of the evolution of private markets over the 20th century. The spread of cost-based price regulation forced firms to systematically measure and account for marginal costs in a way they might not have done otherwise. Mark Wilson, in his fascinating Destructive Creation, describes how the use of cost-plus contracts during World War II rationalized accounting in a broad range of industries. Systems of railroad-like rate regulation were applied to a number of more or less utility-like businesses both before and after the war, imposing from above the rational relationship between costs and prices that the market could not. Many of these regulations have been rolled back since the 1970s, but as noted earlier, many others remain in place.

Late 19th-century debates over railroad regulation might not be the most obvious place to look for guidance to today’s inflation debates. But as Axel Leijonhufvud points out in a beautiful essay on “The Uses of the Past,” economics is not progressive in the way that physical sciences are — we can’t assume that the useful contributions of the past are all incorporated into today’s thought. Economists’ thinking often changes for reasons of politics or fashion, while the questions posed by reality are changing as well as well, often in quite different ways. Older ideas may be more relevant to new problems than the current state of the art. History of economic thought becomes useful, Leijonhufvud writes,

when the road that took you to the ‘frontier of the field’ ends in a swamp or blind alley. A lot of them do. … Back there, in the past, there were forks in the road and it is possible, even plausible, that some roads were more passable than the one that looked most promising at the time.

The road I want to take from those earlier debates is that in a setting of high fixed costs and pervasive market power, how businesses set prices is a legitimate question, both as an object of inquiry and target for policy. One of the central insights of the railroad economists is that in modern capital-intensive industries, there is a wide range over which prices are, in an economic sense, indeterminate. Depending on competitive conditions and the strategic choices of firms, prices can be persistently too high or too low relative to costs. This indeterminacy means that pricing decisions are, at least potentially, a political question.

It’s worth emphasizing here that in empirical studies of how firms actually set prices — which admittedly are rather rare in the economics literature — an important factor in these decisions often seems to be norms around price-setting. In a classic paper on sticky prices, Alan Blinder surveyed business decision-makers on why they don’t change prices more frequently. The most common answer was, “it would antagonize customers.” In a recent ECB survey, one of the top two answers to the same question from businesses selling to the public was, similarly, that “customers expect prices to remain roughly the same.” (The other one was fear that competitors would not follow suit.)

This kind of survey data supports the idea, relied on by the Groundwork team, that businesses with substantial market power might be reluctant to use it in normal times. Those inhibitions would be lifted in an environment like that of the pandemic recovery, where individual price hikes are less likely to be seen as norm violations, or to be noticed at all. (And are more likely to be matched by competitors.)

Even more: It suggests that the moralizing language that critics like Rampell object to can, itself, be a form of inflation control. If fear of antagonizing customers is normally an important restraint on price increases then maybe we need to stoke up that antagonism! The language of “greedflation,” which I admit I didn’t originally care for, can be seen as an updated version of Arthur Hadley’s proposal to “disqualify socially” any business owner who raised prices too much. It is also, of course, useful in the fight for more direct price regulation, which is unlikely to get far on the basis of dispassionate analysis alone.

And this, I think, is a big source of the hostility toward Groundwork and toward others making the greedflation argument, like Isabella Weber.6 They are taking something that has been understood as a neutral, objective market outcome and reframing it as a moral and political question. This is, in Keynes’ terms, a question about the line between the Agenda and the Non-Agenda of political debates; and these are often more acrimonious than disputes where the legitimacy of the question itself is accepted by everyone, however much they may disagree on the answer.

By the same token, I think this line-shifting is a central contribution of the profiteering work. The 2022-23 inflation seems on its way to coming to an end on its own as supply disruptions gradually revolve themselves, just as (albeit more slowly than) Team Transitory always predicted. But even if the aggregate price level is behaving itself, rising prices can remain burdensome and economically costly in all kinds of areas (as can ruinous competition and underinvestment in others). Prices will remain an important political question, even if inflation is not.

My neighbor Stephanie Luce, who spent many years working in the Living Wage movement, often points out that the direct impact of those measures was in general quite small. But that does not mean that all the hard work and organizing that went into them was wasted. A more important contribution, she argues, is that they establish a moral vision and language around wages. Beyond their direct effects, living wage campaigns help shift discussions of wage-setting from economic criteria to questions of fairness and justice. In the same way, establishing price setting as a legitimate part of the political agenda is a step forward that will have lasting value even after the current bout of inflation is long over.

View Details

(I write a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in September. My previous pieces are here.)

You wouldn’t necessarily guess it from the headlines, but we may soon be talking about inflation in the past tense. After peaking at close to 10% in the summer of 2022, inflation has fallen even faster than it rose. Over the past three months inflation, as measured by the CPI, has been slightly below the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Nearly every other measure tells a similar story.

Predicting the future is always risky. But right now, it seems like the conversation about how to fix the inflation problem is nearing its end. Soon, we’ll be having a new debate: Who, or what, should get credit for solving it?

The Fed is the most obvious candidate. Plenty of commentators are already giving it at least tentative credit for delivering that elusive soft landing. And why not? Inflation goes up. The central bank raises interest rates. Inflation goes back down. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?

The problem is, monetary policy does not work through magic. The Fed doesn’t simply tell private businesses how much to charge. Higher interest rates lead to lower prices only by reducing demand. And so far, that doesn’t seem to have happened – certainly not on a scale that could explain how much inflation has come down.

In the textbook story, interest rates affect prices via labor costs. The idea is that businesses normally set prices as a markup over production costs, which consist primarily of wages. When the Fed raises rates, it discourages investment spending — home construction and business spending on plant and equipment — which is normally financed with credit. Less investment means less demand for labor, which means higher unemployment and more labor market slack generally. As unemployment rises, workers, with less bargaining power vis-a-vis employers, must accept lower wages. And those lower wages get passed on to prices.

Of course this is not the only possible story. Another point of view is that tighter credit affects prices through the demand side. In this story, rather than businesses producing as much as they can sell at given costs, there is a maximum amount they can produce, often described as potential output. When demand rises above this ceiling, that’s when prices rise.

Either way, the key point — which should be obvious, but somehow gets lost in macro debates — is that prices are determined by real conditions in individual markets. The only way for higher rates to slow down rising prices, is if they curtail someone’s spending, and thereby production and employment. No business — whether it’s selling semiconductors or hamburgers — says “interest rates are going up, so I guess I’ll charge less.” If interest rates change their pricing decisions, it has to be through some combination of fall in demand for their product, or in the wages they pay.

Over the past 18 months, the Fed has overseen one of the fast increases in short-term interest rates on record. We might expect that to lead to much weaker demand and labor markets, which would explain the fall in inflation. But has it?

The Fed’s rate increases have likely had some effect. In a world where the Federal Funds rate was still at zero, employment and output might well be somewhat higher than they are in reality. Believers in monetary-policy orthodoxy can certainly find signs of a gently slowing economy to credit the Fed with. The moderately weaker employment and wage growth of recent months is, from this point of view, evidence that the Fed is succeeding.

One problem with pointing to weaker labor markets as a success story, is that workers’ bargaining power matters for more than wages and prices. As I’ve noted before, when workers have relatively more freedom to pick and choose between jobs, that affects everything from employment discrimination to productivity growth. The same tight labor markets that have delivered rapid wage growth, have also, for example, encouraged employers to offer flexible hours and other accommodations to working parents — which has in turn contributed to women’s rapid post-pandemic return to the workplace.

A more basic problem is that, whether or not you think a weaker labor market would be a good thing on balance, the labor market has not, in fact, gotten much weaker.

At 3.8%, the unemployment rate is essentially unchanged from where it was when at the peak of the inflation in June 2022. It’s well below where it was when inflation started to rise in late 2020. It’s true that quits and job vacancy rates, which many people look to as alternative measures of labor-market conditions, have come down a bit over the past year. But they still are extremely high by historical standards. The prime-age employment-population ratio, another popular measure of labor-market conditions, has continued to rise over the past year, and is now at its highest level in more than 20 years.

Overall, if the labor market looks a bit softer compared with a year ago, it remains extremely tight by any other comparison. Certainly there is nothing in these indicators to explain why prices were rising at an annual rate of over 10% in mid-2022, compared with just 2% today.

On the demand side, the case is, if anything, even weaker. As Employ America notes in its excellent overview, real gross domestic product growth has accelerated during the same period that inflation has come down. The Bureau of Economic Analysis’s measure of the output gap similarly shows that spending has risen relative to potential output over the past year. For the demand story to work, it should have fallen. It’s hard to see how rate hikes could be responsible for lower inflation during a period in which people’s spending has actually picked up.

It is true that higher rates do seem to have discouraged new housing construction. But even here, the pace of new housing starts today remains higher than at any time between 2007 and the pandemic.

Business investment, meanwhile, is surging. Growth in nonresidential investment has accelerated steadily over the past year and a half, even as inflation has fallen. The U.S. is currently seeing a historic factory boom — spending on new manufacturing construction has nearly doubled over the past year, with electric vehicles, solar panels and semiconductors leading the way. That this is happening while interest rates are rising sharply should raise doubts, again, about how important rates really are for business investment. In any case, no story about interest rates that depends on their effects on investment spending can explain the recent fall in inflation.

A more disaggregated look at inflation confirms this impression. If we look at price increases over the past three months compared with the period of high inflation in 2021-2022, we see that inflation has slowed across most of the economy, but much more so in some areas than others.

Of the seven-point fall in inflation, nearly half is accounted for by energy, which makes up less than a tenth of the consumption basket. Most of the rest of the fall is from manufactured goods. Non-energy services, meanwhile, saw only a very modest slowing of prices; while they account for about 60% of the consumption basket, they contributed only about a tenth of the fall in inflation. Housing costs are notoriously tricky; but as measured by the shelter component of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they are rising as fast now as when inflation was at its peak.

Most services are not traded, and are relatively labor-intensive; those should be the prices most sensitive to conditions in U.S. product and labor markets. Manufactured goods and especially energy, on the other hand, trade in very internationalized markets and have been subject to well-publicized supply disruptions. These are exactly the prices we might expect to fall for reasons having nothing to do with the Fed. The distribution of price changes, in other words, suggests that slowing inflation has little to do with macroeconomic conditions within the US, whether due to Fed action or otherwise.

If the Fed didn’t bring down inflation, what did? The biggest factor may be the fall in energy prices. It’s presumably not a coincidence that global oil prices peaked simultaneously with U.S. inflation. Durable-goods prices have also fallen, probably reflecting the gradual healing of pandemic-disrupted supply chains. A harder question is whether the supply-side measures of the past few years played a role. The IRA and CHIPS Act have certainly contributed to the boom in manufacturing investment, which will raise productive capacity in the future. It’s less clear, at least to me, how much policy contributed to the recovery in supply that has brought inflation down.

But that’s a topic for another time. For now it’s enough to say: Don’t thank the Fed.

(Note: Barron’s, like most publications I’ve worked with, prefers to use graphics produced by their own team. For this post, I’ve swapped out theirs for my original versions.)

View Details

(I write a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in July. My previous pieces are here.) Is inflation fundamentally a macroeconomic problem – a sign of an overheated economy, an excess of aggregate demand over supply? Or is it – at least sometimes – better understood in microeconomic terms, as the … Continue reading At Barron’s: Who Is Winning the Inflation Debate?

View Details

The euro crisis of the 2010s is well in the past now, but it remains one of the central macroeconomic events of our time. But the nature of the crisis remains widely misunderstood, not only by the mainstream but also — and more importantly from my point of view — by economists in the heterodox … Continue reading Revisiting the Euro Crisis

View Details

(Cross-posted from my Substack. If you like this blog, why not subscribe to that too?) I just returned from Bangalore, where Arjun and I spent an intense 10 days working on our book, and on another project which I’ll be posting about in due time. I’d never been to India before, and it was … … Continue reading Industrial Policy: Further Thoughts

View Details

I was on a virtual panel last week on industrial policy as derisking, in response to an important new paper by Daniela Gabor. For me, the conversation helped clarify why people who have broadly similar politics and analysis can have very different feelings about the Inflation Reduction Act and similar measures elsewhere. There are substantive … Continue reading Varieties of Industrial Policy

View Details

(I write a monthly-ish opinion piece for Barron’s. This is my most recent one. You can find earlier ones here.)

Since the onset of the pandemic, policy makers in the U.S. and elsewhere have embraced a more active role for government in the economy. The extraordinary scale and success of pandemic relief, the administration’s embrace of the expansive Build Back Better program, and the revived industrial policy of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act all stand in sharp contrast with the limited-government orthodoxy of the past generation.

The debt ceiling deal announced this weekend looks like a step back from this new path – albeit a smaller one than many had feared. Supporters of industrial policy and more robust social insurance have reason to be disappointed – especially since the administration, arguably, had more room for maneuver than it was willing to use.

To be fair, the agreement in part merely anticipates the likely outcome of budget negotiations. Regardless of the debt ceiling, the administration was always going to have to compromise with the House leadership to pass a budget. The difference is that in a normal negotiation, most government spending continues as usual until a deal is reached. Raising the stakes of failure to reach a deal shifts the balance in favor of the side more willing to court disaster. Allowing budget negotiations to get wrapped up with the debt ceiling may have forced the administration to give up more ground than it otherwise would.

The Biden team’s major nonbudget concession was to accept additional work requirements for some federal benefits. The primary effect of work requirements, with their often onerous administrative burdens, will be to push people off these programs. This might be welcome, if you would prefer that they not exist in their current form at all. But it’s a surprising concession from an administration that, not long ago, was pushing in the other direction.

In a bigger sense this change directly repudiates one of the main social-policy lessons of recent years. Pandemic income-support programs were an extraordinary demonstration of the value of simple, universal social insurance programs, compared with narrowly targeted ones. The expiration of pandemic unemployment benefits gave us the cleanest test we are ever likely to see of the effect of social insurance and employment. States that ended pandemic benefits early did not see any faster job growth than ones that kept it longer – despite the fact that these programs gave their recipients far stronger incentives against work than those targeted in the budget deal.

These compromises are all the more disappointing since there were routes around the debt ceiling that the administration, for whatever reason, chose not to explore. The platinum coin got a healthy share of attention. But there were plenty of others.

The Treasury Department, for example, could have looked into selling debt at a premium. The debt ceiling binds the face value, or principal, of federal debt. There is no reason that this has to be equal to the amount the debt sells for – this is simply how auctions are currently structured. For much of U.S. history, government debt was sold at a discount or premium to its face value. Fixing an above-market interest rate and selling debt at more than face value would allow more funds to be raised without exceeding the debt ceiling.

The administration might also have asked the Federal Reserve to prepay future remittances. In most years, the Fed makes a profit, which it remits to the Treasury. But it can also report a loss, as it has since September. When that happens, the Fed simply creates new reserves to make up the shortfall, offsetting these with a “deferred asset” representing future remittances. (Currently, the Fed is carrying a deferred asset of $62 billion.) The same device could be used to finance public spending without issuing debt. In a report a decade ago, Fed staff suggested that deferred assets could be used in this way to give the Treasury department “more breathing room under the debt ceiling.” (To be clear, they were not saying that this was a good idea, just noting the possibility.)

Another route around the debt ceiling might come from the fact that about one-fifth of the federal debt – some $6 trillion – is held by federal trust funds like Social Security, rather than by the public. (Another $5 trillion is held by the Federal Reserve.) This debt has no economic function. It is a bookkeeping device reflecting the fact that trust fund contributions to date have been higher than payments. Retiring these bonds, or replacing them with other instruments that wouldn’t count against the ceiling, would have no effect on either the government’s commitment to pay scheduled benefits or its ability to do so. But it would reduce the notional value of debt outstanding.

None of these options would be costless, risk-free, or even guaranteed to work. But there is little evidence they were seriously considered. This is a bit disheartening for supporters of the administration’s program. It’s hard to understand why you would go into negotiations with one hand tied behind your backs, and not have a plan B in case negotiations break down.

Tellingly, the one alternative the Biden team did consider was invoking the 14th Amendment to justify issuing new debt in defiance of the ceiling. The amendment refers specifically to the federal government’s debt obligations. But of course, hitting the debt ceiling would not only endanger the government’s debt service. It would threaten all kinds of payments that are legally mandated and economically vital. The openness to the 14th Amendment route, consistent with other public statements, suggests that decision-makers in the administration saw the overriding goal as protecting the financial system from the consequences of a debt default – as opposed to protecting the whole range of public payments.

What looks like a myopic focus on the dangers to banks recalls one of the worst failures of the Obama administration.

In the wake of the collapse of the housing market, Congress in 2009 authorized $46 billion in assistance for homeowners facing foreclosure through the Home Affordable Modification Program. But the Obama administration spent just a small fraction of this money (less than 3%) in the program’s first two years, helping only a small fraction of the number of homeowners originally promised.

The failure to help homeowners was not due to callousness or incompetence. Rather, it was due to the overriding priority put on the stability of the banking system. As Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner later explained, they saw the primary purpose of HAMP not as assisting homeowners, but as a way to “foam the runway” for a financial system facing ongoing mortgage losses.

Geithner and company weren’t wrong to see shoring up the banks as important. The problem was that this was allowed to take absolute priority over all other goals — with the result that millions of families lost their homes, an important factor in the slow growth of much of the 2010s.

One wouldn’t want to push this analogy too far. The debt ceiling deal is not nearly as consequential – or as clear a reflection of administration priorities – as the abandonment of underwater homeowners was. But it does suggest similar blinders: too much attention to the danger of financial crisis on one side, not enough to equally grave threats from other directions.

It’s clear that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and the rest of the Biden administration are very attuned to the dangers of a default. But have they given enough thought to the other dangers of failing to reach a debt-ceiling deal — or of reaching a bad one? Financial crises are not the only crises. There are many ways that an economy can break down.

View Details

(I wrote this post about two weeks ago, but then took a while getting the Substack actually launched. Going forward, hopefully the content will be more timely. All substack content is free; you can subscribe to the newsletter version here. Hopefully the content will be more timely in the future!)

Sometimes I think being a normal economist must be like one of those classic office jobs. You drive to work, park in the garage, take the elevator up to your office. You take some papers from your inbox and put them in your outbox. There’s the research frontier; ok, we’ve advanced it a little bit. Then the bell rings, quitting time. Whereas here in the heterodox world, it’s like you’ve let yourself in through a gap in the fence and you’re wondering, is this place a construction site, or is something being demolished, or is it an archaeological dig? I think this is my desk, but it could be some weird art object, or possibly part of the ventilation system. This person in the hallway — are they the boss, or a customer, or maybe someone in need of emergency medical assistance? Am I sure I have a job? Am I even supposed to be in here?

Well then. Back to work!

The question of the moment is industrial policy. Not so long ago, the consensus on climate policy, at the high table at least, was that carbon pricing was it. Government provides the public interest with an abstract monetary representation, and then private businesses (or “markets”) will translate that representation into whatever concrete changes to production are called for. In recent years, though, the debate seems to have been shifting rather rapidly towards what I have called an investment-focused approach. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (along with other similar measures) seems to mark a decisive turn toward industrial policy, in the US at least. This is not only about climate — the disruptions to global supply chains during the pandemic and, more worryingly, a renewed sense of rivalry with China, have strengthened the case for support for key sectors of the economy.

(Full disclosure: When someone mentioned to me early in the Biden administration that there was interest in dealing with the chip shortage by fostering a US industry, I thought it was a silly idea that would go nowhere. This was, it seemed to me, about the worst case for policy — a problem that was at once both extraordinarily hard for government to solve, and likely to take care of itself on its own before long. Shows you how much I know! — or perhaps, how much things have changed.)

The case for industrial policy, obviously, involves a reevaluation of the capacity of government and the problems it is expected to solve — what Keynes, in an essay whose title can be repurposed today, called the line between agenda and non-agenda. But it also, a bit less obviously, involves a shift in how we think about the economy. An economy where industrial policy makes sense is not one that can be usefully described in terms of a unique, stable equilibrium toward which decentralized decisionmakers will converge. Industrial policy only makes sense in a world where increasing returns and learning by doing create significant path dependence — what we are good at today depends on what we were doing yesterday — and where an uncertain future and the need for large, irreversible investments, and the prevalence of complementarity rather than substitution, creates coordination problems that markets are unable to solve. I don’t know that the drafters of the IRA were conscious of it, but they were implicitly endorsing a very different model of the economy than the one that one finds in textbooks.

Supply constraints. My big recent publication, coauthored as usual with Arjun Jayadev, is an article in the Review of Keynesian Economics called “Rethinking Supply Constraints.” It addresses exactly this issue. The one-sentence summary is that it makes more sense to think of the productive capacity of the economy in terms of a speed limit — a limit on the rate at which output and employment can grow — rather than an absolute ceiling, as in conventional measures of potential output. This, we argue, fits better with a wide range of empirical phenomena. Equally important, it fits better with a vision of the economy as an open-ended collective transformation of the world, as opposed to the allocation of an existing basket of stuff.

There’s a summary in this blogpost, and video of my presentation of it at the University of Massachusetts is here. (I start around 47 minutes in.) I will try to write more about it in this newsletter soon.

Low rates and bubbles. My latest Barron’s piece (I write one more or less monthly) was on whether the post-2007 decade of low interest rates can be blamed for Sam Bankman-Fried and financial bubbles and frauds more generally. As always, when the headline is a question, the answer is no.

I don’t think I quite stuck the landing with this one. The big point I should have hammered on is that if abundant credit ends up supporting projects that are socially and privately worthless, that’s a problem. But it is a problem with the institutions whose job it is to allocate credit, not with low interest rates or abundant credit as such. If banks and bank-like institutions can borrow at lower rates, it’s easy to see why they’d lend to projects with lower returns. It’s harder to see why they’d lend to projects with negative returns. The idea, evidently, is that for some reason when interest rates are too low financial-market participants will make choices that are not only socially costly but costly to themselves as well. The low rates-cause-bubbles arguments almost amount to a kind of financial terrorism — give us the risk-free returns we were counting on, or we’ll blow up our portfolios, and some chunk of the economy along with it.

The connection to industrial policy? If we don’t trust financial markets to make investment decisions, that strengthens the case for a bigger public role.

Biden, Brenner, and Benanav. Robert Brenner’s frequent collaborator Dylan Riley wrote a piece in the NLR blog Sidecar, drawing on Brenner’s work to argue that industrial policy is hopeless because of global overcapacity; you’ve got to seize the commanding heights or stay home. I don’t agree. I think there are ways that the socialist project can be advanced via Biden administration initiatives like the IRA, and wrote a piece for Jacobin explaining why.

Some people liked it — Adam Tooze gave it a nice mention in one of his newsletters. Others did not. Aaron Benanav wrote a long and rather irritated rebuttal in New Left Review. I disagree with a lot of what he wrote, which is fine; he, as he made very clear, disagreed with what I wrote. As the protagonist of James Salter’s great Korean War novel The Hunters says, “You shoot at them, they shoot at you. What could be fairer?” But I am a little annoyed that my jaunty Hamilton reference, intended to warn against the danger of imagining that you are in a position of power, got turned into evidence that I myself dream of being in the “room where it happens.” That seems unsporting.

I talked about my piece and the larger debate with Doug Henwood on his excellent Behind the News podcast. I will also be writing a piece for NLR that will be in part a response to Benanav but mostly, I hope, an intervention to move the debate in a more positive direction.

Speaking of Korea. I was on an English-language Korean news show recently, talking about the IRA. The video is here; a twitter thread summarized the points I was trying to make is here. An implicit background point, also very relevant to my objections to the Brenner-Riley-Benanav position, is that trade flows respond mostly to income, not relative prices. How much the US imports from Korea is to a first approximation a function of US GDP growth; subsidies (and exchange rates) are distinctly secondary.

What I am reading. I just finished the novel Variations on Night and Day, by Abdelrahman Munif. It’s the third novel in the Cities of Salt trilogy, though the first chronologically. The first novel, also called Cities of Salt, is about people in a fictional Middle Eastern Country (more or less Saudi Arabia) in the early days of the oil boom. It’s an extraordinary book in many ways, including its use of mostly collective protagonists — large parts of the narration are from the point of view of “the villagers”, “the workers” and so on. The second book, The Trench, moves up the social scale, focusing on the various schemers, strivers, climbers and entrepreneurs – business and political – who accrete around the monarchy’s capital. It’s got an ensemble, rather than collective cast, with one central character and an endless number of minor ones – it would make a great tv show. (Think a gulf-monarchy version of Hillary Mantel’s Cromwell novels.) The third book — Variations on Night and Day — moves up the social scale again, and back in time, to the earlier life of the sultan whose death occurs at the very beginning of The Trench. It’s a great book, gripping as narrative and morally serious. It provides what science fiction and fantasy promise but very seldom deliver, an immersive experience of a world very different from our own. Still I have to say, I somewhat preferred the first two books. At the end of the day, sultans are just not that interesting.

ETA: As it happens, I went to graduate school with Munif’s son Yasser. He was in the sociology department while I was in economics and we used to hang out quite a bit, tho I haven’t seen him in some years.

View Details

I barley keep up this blog any more; do I really need a new format for (not) writing online? The problem, from my point of view, is that, these days, the only way people see blogs (or most other things one writes) is via twitter. And relying on twitter does not, at this point, see like a great idea. I’m moderately hopeful that an email newsletter can offer an alternative way.

In any case, my new substack is here. It’s pretty no-frills at the moment. I’ve pasted the first post below. For the moment I plan on cross-posting everything, but depending on how the substack goes I may revisit that.

What is this? This is an email newsletter, delivered through Substack. You probably get some others like it already. This one is from me, Joshua William Mason, or J. W. Mason as I usually write it. It’s called Money and Things. This specific email or post is the first one.

Why am I getting this? Either you signed up for it, or I added you. I subscribed a few people who I thought might be interested in hearing from me now and then. I hope you don’t mind! If you do, there’s an unsubscribe button somewhere. I promise I won’t add you again.

Thanks for reading Money and Things! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

What’s the point of it? My main goal with this is to share things I’ve said or written in other settings, along with some interesting things I have read. I write a fair amount in a fair number of venues, and am in the news now and then. So it seems worth having one place to share it all with people who might like to see it. And then, despite the firehouse of content constantly aimed at each of our heads, it still can be nice to have someone point out something worth reading that you might not have run across otherwise.

The other goal is to have a structure for comments on things that are happening in the world. There are always things going on that I don’t have the time or energy or confidence to write about at length, but might have something interesting to say about in a more informal setting. Will a substack be any better for this than the blog I’ve been keeping for the past dozen years? I don’t know, but it seems worth a try.

So, a lot like a twitter feed, then? Yes, very much. I want to use the newsletter to share material that right now I use twitter for. Not everyone is on twitter, after all. And while I can’t see myself getting off twitter entirely – there are still too many interesting people there – I would like to spend less time on it, for all the familiar reasons.

How often will you be sending these? I’m vaguely hoping for once a week. I’m sure it won’t be more often than that; it could be much less. I will at least try to send one out whenever I publish something.

Why is the newsletter called Money and Things? Well, that captures the range of my interests. I write a lot about money, finance, central banks, credit and debt, inflation and other money-related and money-adjacent topics. But I also write about other things.

Also, Money and Things is the working title of the book that Arjun Jayadev and I are working on. This book has been in progress for longer than I care to think about, but it’s now mostly written and should be coming out from the University of Chicago Press sometime in the next year. So I also want to use this email to share material from the book, and, down the road, to encourage people to read it.

What is the book about? Oof, I hoped you wouldn’t ask that. Well, it’s about money … and things.

Can you be more specific? The book is an effort to pull together some different strands of thinking around money that Arjun and I have been grappling with since we were students at the University of Massachusetts 20 years ago. One place to start is the tendency — both in economics and everyday common sense — to think of money either as just one useful object among others, or as a faithful reflection of a material world outside itself. Whereas to us it seems clear we should think of it as constituting its own self-contained world, a game or a logic, that in some ways responds to external material and social reality, but also evolves autonomously, and reshapes that external world in its turn. Economists like to think that when we measure things in terms of money, that is capturing some pre-existing “real” value or quantity. (Like, when you see a figure like GDP, you assume in some sense it reflects a quantity of stuff that was produced.) But in fact — our argument goes — while money is a yardstick that allows all sorts of things to be numerically compared, it doesn’t reflect any underlying quantity except money itself.

Keynesians have been criticizing the idea that money is neutral, just a veil, for decades. But we think there’s still space to spell out what the positive alternative looks like, and why it matters. You might say it’s an attempt to elevate the argument of our “Fisher dynamics” papers — where we argued that movements in debt-income ratios have more to do with interest rates and inflation than change in borrowing behavior — into a worldview or paradigm.

What we’re mainly interested in is the interface or boundary between money-world and the concrete world outside of it. (One jokey summary is that we’re starting from Keynes’ General Theory of Money, Interest and Employment, and writing about the “and”.) The idea is that by focusing there, we can connect some long-standing theoretical questions around the nature of money with contemporary debates about policy and politics, and with historical developments like the shareholder revolution or the euro crisis. We’re aiming for a spot in intellectual space somewhere between Jim Crotty, Perry Mehrling, Doug Henwood and David Graeber, if that makes sense.

Will you have a better answer to this question by the time the book comes out? I hope so!

Getting back to the newsletter — will there be free and paid versions? No, there will not. If someone wanted to give me money for it, I wouldn’t say no. If I got a little, I’d buy my kids ice cream. If I got a significant amount, which seems unlikely, then I might put more time into writing it. If I get none at all, that’s perfectly fine.

My personal view – which I know not everyone shares – is that if you are a tenure-track academic, it’s a bit unethical to charge money for a newsletter or similar product. The job of an academic is not just teaching; we are being paid to think about the world and share what we learn. So to me – again, I know many people feel differently – when you turn your work as a scholar into a kind of private business venture, that’s almost a form of embezzlement. Perhaps you saw Inside Job, that movie about economists and the financial crisis. Remember how eagerly someone like Frederic Mishkin turned his stature as a big-name monetary economist into big checks for himself? I don’t want to be that guy. Of course I’m not under any illusion that my integrity carries anything like the market price of a Mishkin’s. But it’s still worth something to me.

To be clear, this doesn’t apply to people who make a living as journalists or writers. If you are a professional writer your readers need to be paying you one way or another, and subscriber-only newsletter content is a legitimate way to make that happen. But as an academic, I’m already being compensated for this kind of work.

Does this mean your book will also be distributed for free? Well, no. The publishers will charge whatever they normally do for a book like this, and Arjun and I will get whatever (presumably small) royalties we’re entitled to out of that.

So how is that different? I don’t know. I feel like it’s different? Of course producing a physical book is costly, and the publisher has their own employees, whose services are valuable, and other costs that have to be paid. On the other hand, it would be technically feasible to just put the book up online as a pdf, and let anyone download it. So making people pay is in some sense a choice we are making. Still, if Inside Job had merely caught Mishkin admitting he’d published a book about financial crises, I don’t think that would have been much of a gotcha. Although then again, on the other hand, the textbook-writing business does seem a bit morally compromised. (Personally I try not to assign anything I can’t distribute a free pdf of.) I do hope our book will be used in the classroom. But I wish students could get excerpts of it in xeroxed course packets, they way I did when I was in college.

Anyway. Money and Things, the newsletter, will always be entirely free. Money and Things, the book, will not be.

You seem to have strong feelings on this topic. Do you have anything else to say about it? Yes, I do. I’ve always found it infuriating that so much scholarly work is hidden behind paywalls. It goes against the whole idea of scholarship, especially if you think of your academic work as part of some political project or as otherwise useful. During the six-seven years between my two stints in graduate school, I was intermittently engaged in online economics discussions, and I found it deeply frustrating that there were so many interesting articles that, without an academic affiliation, I was not permitted to read. I hope someday we recognize IP as applied to academic work for what it is, a comprehensive regime of censorship. (And Alexandra Elbakyan, the creator of sci-hub, as one of humanity’s heroes.)

A bit more recently, but still some years ago, I joined the steering committee of the Union for Radical Political Economics in large part to see if I could convince them to convert URPE’s journal, the Review of Radical Political Economics, to open access. Here you are, I thought, doing work that’s supposed to be part of a larger transformative project, that is relevant not just for other academics but for workers and activists. So why are you enlisting the power of the state to stop people from reading it?

As is often the case, what seemed unanswerable in principle turned out to be less straightforward in practice. The leadership of URPE the organization is largely separate from that of the journal; there’s a multi-year contract with the publisher; and even if open access were allowed, URPE’s share of the subscription revenue is basically the organization’s entire budget. If we went open-access, how would we pay the editor, or award fellowships to students in heterodox programs, or fly people out for the steering committee meetings? Maybe, I suggested, allowing people to read the journal is more important than flying people to meetings. Easy for you to say, someone replied, you live in New York; for others, if they can’t come out and meet in person, they won’t be part of this community at all. Besides, are there really so many non-academics who want to read RRPE?

Maybe if I’d pushed harder I could have got somewhere. But the obstacles were real, and no one seemed to agree with me, so I gave up, and eventually left the steering committee. (Life is too short to be on too many committees.) But I still think I was right.

Anything else? No, I think that’s it for now. But don’t worry – there will be another post coming shortly after this one.

View Details

(I write a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. These sometimes run in the print edition, which I appreciate — it’s a vote of confidence from the editors, and means more readers. It does impose a tighter word count limit, though. The text below is the longer version I originally submitted. The version that was published is here. All of my previous Barron’s pieces are here.)

The past year has seen a parade of financial failures and asset crashes. Silicon Valley bank was the first bank failure since 2020, and the biggest since 2008. Before that came the collapse of FTX, and of much of the larger crypto ecosystem. Corporate bankruptcies are coming faster than at any time since 2011. Even luxury watches are in freefall.

The proximate cause of much of this turmoil is the rise in interest rates. So it’s natural to ask if the converse is true. Is the overvaluing of so many worthless assets – whether through bubbles or fraud – the fault of a decade-plus of low rates? For those who believe this, the long period of low rates following the global financial crisis fueled an “everything bubble”, just as the earlier period of low rates fueled the housing boom of the 2000s. The rise of fragile or fraudulent institutions, which float up on easy credit before inevitably crashing back to earth, is a sign that monetary policy should never have been so loose. As journalist Rana Foorohar put it in a much-discussed article, “Keeping rates too low for too long encourages speculation and debt bubbles.”

You can find versions of this argument being made by prominent Keynesians, as well as by economists of a more conservative bent. At the Bank for International Settlements “too low for too long” is practically a mantra. But, does the story make sense?

Yes, low interest rates are associated mean high asset prices. But that’s not the same as a bubble.To the extent an asset represents a stream of future payments, a low discount rate should raise its value.

On the other hand, asset prices are not just about discounted future income streams; they also incorporate a bet on the future price of the asset itself. If a fall in interest rates leads to a rise in asset prices, market participants may mistakenly expect that rise to continue. That could lead to assets being overvalued even relative to the current low rates.

Another argument one sometimes hears for why low rates lead to bubbles is that when income from safe assets is low, investors will “reach for yield” by taking on more risk, bidding up the price of more speculative assets. Investors’ own liabilities also matter. When it’s cheap and easy to borrow, an asset may be attractive that wouldn’t be if financing were harder to come by.

But if low interest rates make acquiring risky assets more attractive, is that a problem? After all, that’s how monetary policy is supposed to work. The goal of rate cuts is precisely to encourage investment spending that wouldn’t happen if rates were higher. As I argued recently, it’s not clear that most business investment is very responsive to interest rates. But whether the effect on the economy is strong or weak, “low interest rates cause people to buy assets they otherwise wouldn’t” is just monetary policy working as intended.

Still, intended results may have unintended consequences. When people are reaching for yield, the argument goes, they are more likely to buy into projects that turn out to be driven by fraud, hype or fantasy.

Arguments for the dangers of low rates tend to take this last step for granted. But it’s not obvious why an environment of low yields should be more favorable to frauds. Projects with modest expected returns are, after all, much more common than projects with very high ones; when risk-free returns are very low, there should be more legitimate higher-yielding alternatives, and less need for risky long shots. Conversely, it is the projects that promise very high returns that are most likely to be frauds — and that are viable at very high rates.

Certainly this was Adam Smith’s view. For him, the danger of speculation and fraud was not an argument for high interest rates, but the opposite. If legal interest rates were “so high as 8 or 10 percent,” he believed, then “the greater part of the money which was to be lent would be lent to prodigals and projectors, who alone would be willing to give this high interest. Sober people … would not venture into the competition.”

The FTX saga is an excellent example. At one point, Sam Bankman-Fried—a projector and prodigal if ever there was one—offered as much as 20% on new loans to his hedge fund, Alameda, according to The Wall Street Journal. It wouldn’t take low rates to make that attractive — if he was good for it. But, of course, he was not. And that is the crux of the problem. Someone like Bankman-Fried is not offering a product with low but positive returns, that would be attractive only when rates are low but not when they were high. He was offering a product with an expected return that, in retrospect, was in the vicinity of -100 percent. Giving him your money to him would be a bad idea at any interest rate.

We can debate what it would take to prevent fraud-fueled bubbles in assets like cryptocurrency. Perhaps it calls for tighter restrictions on the kinds of products that can be offered for sale, or more stringent rules on the choices of retail investors. Or perhaps, given crypto’s isolation from the broader financial system, this is a case where it’s ok to just let the buyer beware. In any case, the problem was not that crypto offered higher returns than the alternative. The problem was that people believed the returns in crypto were much higher than they actually were. Is this a problem that interest rates can solve?

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that it is. Suppose that without the option of risk-free returns of 3 or 4 or 5 percent, people will throw their money away on crazy longshots and obvious frauds. If you take this idea seriously, it has some funny implications. Normally, when we ask why asset owners are entitled to their income in the first place, the answer is that it’s an incentive to pick out the projects with the highest returns. (Hopefully these are also the most socially useful ones.) The “too low for too long” argument turns this logic on its head. It says that asset owners need to be guaranteed high returns because they can’t tell a good project from a bad one.

That said, there is one convincing version of this story. For all the reasons above, it does not make sense to think of ordinary investors being driven toward dangerous speculation by low interest rates. Institutions like insurance and pension funds are a different matter. They have long-term liabilities that are more or less fixed and, critically, independent of interest rates. Their long investment horizons mean their loss of income from lower rates will normally outweigh their capital gains when they fall. (This is one thing the BIS surely gets right.) When the alternative is insolvency, it can make sense to choose a project where the expected return is negative, if it offers a chance of getting out of the hole. That’s a common explanation for the seemingly irresponsible loans made by many Savings & Loans in the 1980s—faced with bankruptcy, they “gambled for resurrection.” One can imagine other institutions making a similar choice.

What broke the S&Ls in was high rates, not low ones. But there is a common thread. A structure set up when interest rates are in a certain range may not work when they move outside of it. A balance sheet set up on the basis of interest rates in some range will have problems if they move outside it.

Modern economies depend on a vast web of payment expectations and commitments stretching far into the future. Changes in interest rates modify many change of those future payments; whether upward or downward, this means disappointed expectations and broken commitments.

If the recent period of low rates was financially destabilizing, then, the problem wasn’t the not low rates in themselves. It was that they weren’t what was planned on. If the Fed is going to draw general lessons from the bubbles that are now popping, it should not be about the dangers of low rates, but that of drastic and unexpected moves in either direction.

View Details

(This piece was published by Jacobin on April 6, 2023, in response to the Dylan Riley post linked in the first paragraph. The version below adds a few unimportant footnotes and one somewhat important paragraph that I forgot to write before submitting it — the one about halfway through that mentions Oskar Lange.)

A few days ago, Dylan Riley wrote a post on New Left Review’s Sidecar blog that provoked a furious response on twitter. 1 Since I largely agree with the criticism made by Alex Williams, Nathan Tankus, Doug Henwood and others, perhaps I shouldn’t add to the chorus. But I want to try to clarify the larger stakes in this debate.

Riley’s piece starts from the suggestion that the failure of Silicon Valley Bank reflects a larger crisis of overcapacity and lack of investment opportunities. SVB, he writes,

had parked a huge quantity of its deposits in low-yield – but supposedly safe – government-backed securities and low-interest bonds. … the bank was overwhelmed by the massive growth in deposits from its tech clients – and neither it nor they could find anything worthwhile to invest in. …the SVB collapse is a beautiful, almost paradigmatic, demonstration of the fundamental structural problem of contemporary capitalism: a hyper-competitive system, clogged with excess capacity and savings, with no obvious outlets to soak them up.

This is an elegant framing but it runs into a problem immediately, involving the ambivalent meaning of ‘invest.” The depositors in SVB were not venture capitalists, but the firms that they had stakes in. The reason SVB had such big deposits was not because finance was unable to find profitable outlets even in the tech world, but precisely because it had done so. The fact that SVB’s assets consisted of Treasury bonds rather than loans to its depositors reflects the shift in business financing, especially in tech, away from banks toward specialized venture capital funds — an interesting development, certainly, but one that doesn’t tell us anything about the overall population of businesses looking for financing. Lurking behind Riley’s formulation here seems to be a crude version of commodity money theory, in which money is either out in the world being useful, or being left idle in the bank. But money in the real world is always in the form of bank deposits — that’s what money is — regardless of how actively it is circulating.

To be fair, Silicon Valley Bank is just the hook here. The real argument of the post — the one that provoked such a reaction — is that the ongoing crisis of overcapacity means that Green New Deal-type programs of public investment in decarbonization are a self-defeating dead end. “Imagine,” writes Riley,

that Bidenomics in its most ambitious form were successful. What exactly would this mean? Above all it would lead to the onshoring of industrial capacity in both chip manufacturing and green tech. But that process would unfold in a global context in which all the other capitalist powers were vigorously attempting to do more or less the same thing. The consequence of this simultaneous industrialization drive would be a massive exacerbation of the problems of overcapacity on a world scale, putting sharp pressure on the returns of the same private capital that was ‘crowded-in’ by ‘market-making’ industrialization policies.

There are a number of distinct arguments in, or at least in the vicinity of, Riley’s post. We can of course debate the specific content of the IRA — where does it fall on Daniela Gabor’s spectrum from “de-risking” to the “big green state”? There’s a larger political question about the extent to which activists and intellectuals on the left should attach themselves to programs carried out by the established political actors through the state, as opposed to popular movements outside of it. And then there is the specific question of overcapacity — is it reasonable to think that any boost to investment via public spending will jus diminish opportunities for profitable accumulation elsewhere?

I’m not unsympathetic to the first two of these arguments, even if I don’t agree with them in this particular case.

In my opinion, the IRA model passes two key tests: The public money goes to productive enterprises, not to holders of financial assets; and there is affirmative direction of spending toward specific activities. To me there is an important difference between “for each new solar panel you install with union labor, you will get x dollars of subsidies” and “if you hold a bond that fits these broad criteria, the interest is taxed at a lower rate” — even though, at a sufficiently high level of abstraction, both involve subsidizing private capital. But there’s a lot of room for debate here about how to describe specific measures and where to draw the line; a different read of its provisions might plausibly put the IRA on the other side of it.

Similarly, it’s important to remember that winning some specific legislation does not mean that you control the state — there’s a real danger in imagining ourselves “in the room where it happens” when in reality we are very far from it. When Riley writes that “no socialist should advocate an ‘industrial policy’ of any sort, nor have any truck with self-defeating New Deals,” I, obviously, do not agree. But if you wrote a parallel sentence about the humanitarian activities of the US military in various parts of the globe, I would agree wholeheartedly. Over the years I’ve had many disagreements with people with broadly similar political commitments, who thought this particular intervention could was worth supporting. As far as I am concerned, when the instruments of the state are marines and cruise missiles, the only possible engagement from the left is protest and obstruction.

War is different from industrial policy. But one can imagine an argument along these lines that would be worth taking seriously. If you wanted to write a stronger critique of the Green New Deal from the left, you might stress the tight links between industrial policy and nationalism, and the frightening anti-China rhetoric that’s a ubiquitous part of the case for public investment.

Here, though, I want to talk about the specifically economic argument, about overproduction.

Riley’s post draws on a long-standing argument among writers for the New Left Review, that the fundamental challenge for contemporary capitalism is overproduction or excess capacity. In this story, the end of the postwar Golden Age was due to the end of US dominance in world trade. Starting in the 1970s, stable oligopolies in manufacturing gave way to to cutthroat competition as producers from an increasing number of countries competed for a limited market. Because manufacturing is so dependent on long-lived, specialized capital goods, producers are unwilling to exit even in the face of falling prices, giving rise to chronic depressed profits and excess capacity, and a turn to financial predation — what Robert Brenner calls neofeudalism — as an alternative outlet for investment. Even when profits recover, there’s little incentive to add to accumulate new means of production, given that there’s already capacity to produce more than markets can absorb.

The most influential version of this story is probably Brenner’s book-length New Left Review article from 1998. 2 It is clearly compelling on some level – a lot of people seem to believe something like it. It draws on a long tradition of theories of overproduction and destructive competition, going back at least to the underconsumption theories of Hobson, Lenin and Luxemburg on the one side and, on the other, the first generation of the US economics profession, shaped by the pathological effects of competition between railways. Richard Ely, founder of the American Economics Association, described the problem clearly: “whenever the principle of increasing returns works with any high degree of intensity, competition can never regulate private business satisfactorily.” His contemporary Arthur Hadley described destructive competition in capital-intensive industries in very much the same terms as Brenner: at prices

far below the point where it pays to do your own business, it pays to steal business from another man. The influx of new capital will cease; but the fight will go on, either until the old investment and machinery are worn out, or until a pool of some sort is arranged.

(The quotes are form Michael Perelman’s excellent The End of Economics.)

There’s an important truth to the idea that, in a world of long-lived specialized capital goods and constant or falling marginal costs, there is no tendency for market prices to reflect costs of production. Too much competition, and firms will sell at prices that don’t recoup their fixed costs, and drive each other to bankruptcy. Too little competition, and firms will recover their full costs and then some, while limiting socially useful output. No market process ensures that competition ends up at the goldilocks level in the middle.

But while this problem is real, there’s something very strange about the way Riley deploys it as an argument against the Green New Deal. Rather than a story about competition, he — following Brenner — talks as if there was a fixed amount of demand out there that producers must compete for. In a world of overproduction, he says, any public investment will just create more excess capacity, driving down profits and accumulation somewhere else.

In a funny way, this is the mirror image of the Treasury View of the 1930s — which said that any increase in public employment would just mean an equal fall in private employment — or of its modern day successors like Jason Furman and Lawrence Summers. The Furman-Summers line is that the world has only a certain amount of productive capacity; any public spending above that level that will just result in inflation, or else crowding out of private investment. The Brenner-Riley line is that the world has only a certain amount of demand, both in general and for carbon-reducing technology specifically. Try to produce any more than that, and you’ll just have excess capacity and falling profits. Both sides agree that the economy is like a bathtub — try to overfill it and the excess will just run over the sides. The difference is that for first side demand is the water and productive capacity is the tub, while for the other it’s the other way round.

Riley invokes Oskar Lange’s 1930s discussions of electoral socialism in support of his contention that “half-measures are self-contradictory absurdities” — which very much includes any “blather about New Deals.” But the situation facing socialist governments in the 1930s was quite different. Their problem was that any serious discussion of nationalization would terrify capital and discourage investment, sending the economy into a deeper slump and dooming socialists’ prospects for extending their initial electoral gains. This meant that nationalization had to be carried out all at once or not at all — which in practice, of course, meant the latter. (There is a good discussion of this in Przeworski’s Paper Stones.) Keynesian fiscal policy was precisely what offered the way out of this trap, by allowing an expansion of the public sector on terms consistent with continued private accumulation. Riley here is rejecting exactly the solution to the problem Lange identified.

But there’s a deeper problem with the Riley-Brenner vision. In Jim Crotty’s review of Brenner’s long article, he argues that, in response to what Brenner saw as an excessive focus on labor-capital conflict in accounts of the end of the postwar boom, he created an equally one-sided story focused exclusively on inter-capitalist competition. I think this gets to the crux of the matter.

Let’s take a step back.

The development of a capitalist economy is a complex process, which can go wrong at many points. Production on an increased scale requires the expansion of the physical and organizational means of production, with whatever technical and material requirements that entails. Additional labor must be enlisted and supervised. New raw materials must be acquired, and the production process itself has to be carried out on an increased scale. The resulting products have to be sold at a price that covers the cost of production — in other words, there must be sufficient demand. The resulting surplus has to be channeled back to investment. All of this has to take place without excessive changes in relative prices, and in particular without politically destabilizing changes in wages or the distribution of income. The reinvestment stage normally happens via the financial system; the ongoing payment commitments this generates have to be consistently met. And it all must take place without generating unsustainable cross-border payment flows or commitments.

All of these steps have to happen in sync, across a wide range of sectors and enterprises. A business expanding production has to be confident that the market for its products is also growing, as well as the supply of the inputs it uses, the financing it depends on, and the labor it exploits. An interruption in any of these will halt the whole process. When growth is steady and incremental, this can be mostly taken for granted, but not in the case of more rapid or qualitative change, as in industrialization.

This problem was clearly recognized by earlier development economists. It’s the idea behind the “two gap” and “three gap” models of Hollis Chenery and his collaborators, the “big push” of Rosenstein-Rodan, or Gerschenkron’s famous essay on late industrialization.3 Everything has to move forward together. Industrialization requires not only factories, but ports, railroads, water, electricity, schools. All of these depend on the others. You need savings (or at least credit), and you need demand, and you need labor, and you need foreign exchange.4

At the same time, an essential feature of the capitalist mode of production is that the various steps each involve different decision makers, acting with an eye only to their own monetary returns. From the point of view of each decision maker, the choices of all the others look like fixed, objective constraints. From the point of view of a particular producer, the question of whether there is sufficient demand to justify additional output is an objective fact. For the producers collectively, it is their decisions that determine the level of demand just as much as — in fact simultaneously with — the level of current output. But for them individually, it’s a given, an external constraint.

The problem comes when in thinking about the system as a whole we treat something like destructive competition not as what it is – a coordination problem – but from the partial perspective of the individual producer. From this perspective, it appears as objectively given, as if there were only so much demand to go around. The mainstream, of course, makes the exact same error when they treat the productive capacity of the system as prior to and independent of the actual level of activity. (This is the point of Arjun Jayadev’s and my recent paper on supply constraints.) The fact that when one part of the system moves ahead faster it encounters friction from parts that are lagging imposes genuine limits on the pace of expansion — both supply and demand constraints are real – but we should not treat them as absolute or externally given.

The faster and farther reaching are the changes in production, the harder it is for a decentralized market system to maintain coherence, and the more necessary conscious, more or less centralized coordination becomes. This was one of the main lessons of the economic mobilization for World War II, and a critical consideration for decarbonization. Planning is ubiquitous in real-world capitalism, and more rapid transformations in activity require planning at a higher level.

At the same time, we shouldn’t underestimate the capacity of our system of anarchic production for profit to eventually break through the barriers it encounters — something Marx understood better than anyone. That is why it’s become the world-encompassing system it is. Sustained demand will itself call forth the new labor and improved production techniques required to meet it. Conversely, while Say’s law may not hold in the short run, or as a matter of logic, it is very much the case that improvements in production create new markets, and expand demand qualitatively as well as quantitatively.

Overproduction and excess capacity are not new phenomena. They have been a recurring feature of the great crises that capitalist economies have experienced for the past two hundred years. Here is Jules Michelet’s beautiful contemporary description of the 1842 commercial crisis in France:

The cotton mills were at the last gasp, choking to death. The warehouses were stuffed, and there were no sales. The terrified manufacturer dared neither work nor stop working with those devouring machines. Yet usury is not laid off, so he worked half-time, and the glut grew worse. Prices fell, but in vain; they went on falling until cotton cloth stood at six sous.

We should never forget about the misery and chaos of crises like this. But we should also not forget how this story ends. It is not “and then eventually enough mills were shut down and things went back to how they were before.” Not at all.

Michelet continues:

Then something completely unexpected happened. The words six sous aroused the people. Millions of purchasers — poor people who had never bought anything — began to stir. Then we saw what an immense and powerful consumer the people is when engaged. The warehouses were emptied in a moment. The machines began to work furiously again, and chimneys began to smoke. That was a revolution in France, little noted but a great revolution nonetheless. It was a revolution in cleanliness and the embellishments of the homes of the poor; underwear, bedding, table linen, and window curtains were now being used by whole classes who had not used them since the beginning of the world.

An openness to the possibility of this sort of transformational change is what’s fundamentally missing from both the Summers-Furman and Brenner-Riley views. This is not a system in homeostasis, that if disturbed returns to its old position. It is a system lurching from one unstable equilibrium to another. And this is very relevant, I think, to decarbonization.

Not so very long ago, it was conventional wisdom that photovoltaic energy was never going to be more than a niche power source — useful when you can’t connect to the grid, but way too expensive to to ever be used at utility scale. And now look — solar accounted for nearly half of new electricity generation installed last year. There’s an almost endless scope for further growth in renewable energy, as more of the economy is electrified. The fact that Silicon Valley Bank was holding a bunch of Treasury bonds does not mean that the field of productive investment has been exhausted.

The tremendous growth of renewable energy over the past generation wouldn’t have happened without public subsidies and regulation. At the same time, most of the actual production has been carried out by employees of private, profit-seeking businesses. Riley is absolutely right that no one should be counting on private investment in education or in care work. Explaining why those activities depend critically on the autonomy and intrinsic motivation of the workers carrying them out, and are therefore inherently unsuited to for-profit businesses, is something we need to keep doing. The same goes for many public functions that have been turned over to contractors. But there are many other areas where it is still possible to harness the profit motive to meet human needs.

(I am not, to be clear, saying anything about the virtues of markets or the profit motive in the abstract. I would like to progressively eliminate them from human life. I am simply stating the fact that my house was put up by a private builder, for profit, and yet the roof does keep out the rain.)

There is plenty of scope to criticize the specific content of the IRA and other climate legislation, and the strategic choices of the groups that support them. (Altho a bit of humility is called for with the latter.) But we need to categorically reject the idea that there is some hard constraint such that any program to increase private spending on decarbonization will be canceled out by a reduction in spending somewhere else.

The bottom line, both for the politics and the economics, is that we need to resist thinking in terms of a change in one area while everything else stays the same. Ceteris paribus may be a useful analytic tool, but it’s fundamentally inapplicable to historical processes where one change creates the pressure, and the possibility, for another.

Yes, given the existing productive technology, given existing markets, one country’s support for renewable energy might compete with another’s. But these things are not given. Economies of scale exist at the level of the industry as well as the firm; technological progress in one place quickly spills over to others. As, say, hydrogen becomes practical for large-scale energy storage, it will be come practical to produce green energy in areas where it isn’t today. This is as far as you can get from the Brenner paradigm of a zero-sum competition for shares of a fixed market.

The real problem for the Green New Deal and broader industrial policy program is not scarcity, whether of material or of markets. It is twofold. First, it requires a capacity for public planning that is currently lacking, in the US and elsewhere. Industrial policy means building up and legitimating the state’s direct role in a wider range of activity— a challenge when the biggest existing form of direct public provision, the public schools, are under ferocious attack from the right. Second, to the extent that a rush of public and private spending leads to a sustained boom, that will create profound challenges for a system that is used to managing distributional conflicts through unemployment. We’ve gotten a sense of what the political reaction to full employment might look like from recent inflation discourse, with its fears of “labor scarcity.” It’s reasonable, for now, to respond that it’s silly to worry about a wage-price spiral while labor is so weak. But what happens when labor gets stronger?

These are real challenges. But we shouldn’t see them as arguments against this program, only as markers for where the next conflicts are likely to be. That’s always how it is. “Gradualism cannot work,” declares Riley, but all politics is incremental. Socialism is only a direction of travel. Even if the “commanding heights of the economy” could “be seized at once” — Riley’s rather ambitious alternative to the Green New Deal — that would only be a step toward the next struggle.

A program to mobilize the existing bourgeois state to push private spending in the direction of meeting human needs, and the need for a habitable planet in particular, faces many obstacles — that is true. Whatever successes the left has had under the Biden administration have been limited and compromised. Some of the most important, like the expansion of unemployment and family benefits, have already been rolled back — that is also true. But the same could be said for all the socialist programs of the past. We have to just keep going, with one eye on the long run direction of travel and the other on the contingencies of the present. The one thing we can say for certain about the future is that it hasn’t happened yet. If we keep going, we will see things that haven’t been seen since the beginning of the world.

View Details

(I write a more-or-less monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This is my contribution for March 2023; you can find the earlier ones here.)

When interest rates go up, businesses spend less on new buildings and equipment. Right?

That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyway. To be worth doing, after all, a project has to return more than the cost of financing it. Since capital expenditure is often funded with debt, the hurdle rate, or minimum return, for capital spending ought to go up and down with the interest rate. In textbook accounts of monetary policy, this is a critical step in turning rate increases into slower activity.

Real economies don’t always match the textbook, though. One problem: market interest rates don’t always follow the Federal Reserve. Another, perhaps even more serious problem, is that changes in interest rates may not matter much for capital spending.

A fascinating new study raises new doubts about how much of a role interest rates play in business investment.

To clarify the interest-investment link, Niels Gormsen and Kilian Huber — both professors at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business — did something unusual for economists. Instead of relying on economic theory, they listened to what businesses themselves say. Specifically, they (or their research assistants) went through the transcripts of thousands of earnings calls with analysts, and flagged any mention of the hurdle rate or required return on new capital projects.

What they found was that quoted hurdle rates were consistently quite high — typically in the 15-20% range, and often higher. They also bore no relationship to current interest rates. The federal funds rate fell from 5.25% in mid-2007 to zero by the end of 2008, and remained there through 2015. But you’d never guess it from the hurdle rates reported to analysts. Required returns on new projects were sharply elevated over 2008-2011 (while the Fed’s rate was already at zero) and remained above their mid-2000s level as late as 2015. The same lack of relationship between interest rates and investment spending is found at the level of individual firms, suggesting, in Gormsen and Huber’s words, that “fluctuations in the financial cost of capital are largely irrelevant for [business] investment.”

While this picture offers a striking rejection of the conventional view of interest rates and investment spending, it’s consistent with other research on how managers make investment decisions. These typically find that changes in the interest rate play little or no role in capital spending.

If businesses don’t look at interest rates when making investment decisions, what do they look at? The obvious answer is demand. After all, low interest rates are not much of an incentive to increase capacity if existing capacity is not being used. In practice, business investment seems to depend much more on demand growth than on the cost of capital.

(The big exception is housing. Demand matters here too, of course, but interest rates also have a clear and direct effect, both because the ultimate buyers of the house will need a mortgage, and because builders themselves are more dependent on debt financing than most businesses are. If the Fed set the total number of housing permits to be issued across the country instead of a benchmark interest rate, the effects of routine monetary policy might not look that different.)

If business investment spending is insensitive to interest rates, but does respond to demand, that has implications for more than the transmission of monetary policy. It helps explain both why growth is so steady most of the time, and why it can abruptly stall out.

As long as demand is growing, business investment spending won’t be very sensitive to interest rates or other prices. And that spending in turn sustains demand. When one business carries out a capital project, that creates demand for other businesses, encouraging them to expand as well. This creates further demand growth in turn, and more capital spending. This virtuous cycle helps explain why economic booms can continue in the face of all kinds of adverse shocks — including, sometimes, efforts by the Fed to cut them off.

On the other hand, once demand falls, investment spending will fall even more steeply. Then the virtuous cycle turns into a vicious one. It’s hard to convince businesses to resume capital spending when existing capacity is sitting idle. Each choice to hold back on investment, while individually rational, contributes to an environment where investment looks like a bad idea.

This interplay between business investment and demand was an important part of Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of business cycles. It played a critical role in John Maynard Keynes’ analysis of the Great Depression. Under the label multiplier-accelerator models, it was developed by economists in the decades after World War II. (The multiplier is the link from investment to demand, while the accelerator is the link from demand growth to investment.) These theories have since fallen out of fashion among economists. But as the Gormsen and Huber study suggests, they may fit the facts better than today’s models that give decisive importance to the interest rate controlled by the Fed.

Indeed, we may have exaggerated the role played in business cycles not just of monetary policy, but of money and finance in general. The instability that matters most may be in the real economy. The Fed worries a great deal about the danger that expectations of higher inflation may become self-confirming. But expectations about real activity can also become unanchored, with even greater consequences. Just look at the “jobless recoveries” that followed each of the three pre-pandemic recessions. Weak demand remained stubbornly locked in place, even as the Fed did everything it could to reignite growth.

In the exceptionally strong post-pandemic recovery, the Fed has so far been unable to disrupt the positive feedback between rising incomes and capital spending. Despite the rate hikes, labor markets remain tighter than any time in the past 20 years, if not the past 50. Growth in nonresidential investment remains fairly strong. Housing starts have fallen sharply since rates began rising, but construction employment has not – at least not yet. The National Federation of Independent Business’s survey of small business owners gives a sharply contradictory picture. Most of the respondents describe this as a very poor moment for expansion, yet a large proportion say that they themselves plan to expand and increase hiring. Presumably at some point this gap between what business owners are saying and what they are doing is going to close – one way or the other.

If investment responded strongly to interest rates, it might be possible for the Fed to precisely steer the economy, boosting demand a little when it’s weak, cooling it off when it gets too hot. But in a world where investment and demand respond mainly to each other, there’s less room for fine-tuning. Rather than a thermostat that can be turned up or down a degree or two, it might be closer to the truth to say that the economy has just two settings: boom and bust.

At its most recent meeting, the Fed’s forecast was for the unemployment rate to rise one point over the next year, and then stabilize. Anything is possible, of course. But in the seven decades since World War Two, there is no precedent for this. Every increase in the unemployment rate of a half a point has been followed by a substantial further rise, usually of two points or more, and a recession. (A version of this pattern is known as the Sahm rule.) Maybe we will have a soft landing this time. But it would be the first one.

View Details

I have a new paper on how we conceptualize the supply side of the economy, coauthored with Arjun Jayadev. I presented a version of this at the Political Economy research Institute in December 2022. You can watch video of my presentation here — I come on, after some technical difficulties, around 47:00. (The other presentations from the conference are also very worth watching.) The paper will be published in the upcoming issue of the Review of Keynesian Economics. (The linked version is our draft; when the published version comes out I’ll post that.)

Our fundamental argument is that while macroeconomic supply constraints are normally conceptualized in terms of a level (or level-path) of potential output, in many contexts it would be better to think in terms of a constraint on the rate of change — a speed limit rather than a ceiling.

While this is a general argument, it’s motivate by the experiences of the pandemic and the post-financial crisis recovery of the preceding decade. We think the speed-limit conception of supply constraints makes sense of a number of macroeconomic developments that are hard to make sense of in the conventional view.

First, deviations in output are persistent. We saw this clearly in the wake of the Great Recession, but it seems to be a more general phenomenon. There’s a long-standing empirical finding that there’s no general tendency of output to return to its previous trend. One way we could explain this is the real business cycle way — short-term as well as long-term variation in output growth are driven by changes in the economy’s productive capacity. But of course, there is lots of evidence that business cycles are driven by demand. Alternatively, we could argue that potential grows steadily but actual output may remain far below it indefinitely. I was making arguments like this a few years ago. The problem is that direct evidence on the output gap (unemployment, growth in wages and prices, businesses’ reported capacity utilization rates, etc.) suggest that the output gap did close over the course of the 2010s. So we’re left with the idea that potential output adjusts to actual output — hysteresis. But if we take this idea seriously, it rules out the conventional idea of a level of potential output. In a world where hysteresis is important, a zero output gap is consistent with lots of different level-paths of output; supply constraints only bind the speed of the transitions between them.

Second, there’s no well-defined level of full employment. (Here we have to ding Keynes a bit.) Employment grows steadily over business cycles — there’s no sign of convergence to some long-term trend. Estimates of the NAIRU or natural unemployment rate follow actual unemployment more or less one for one. And if we try to make a bottom-up estimate of full employment — what fraction of the population could plausibly be engaged in paid work — we end up with a value much higher than actual employment even at cyclical peaks.

Third, we observe inflation and other signs of supply constraints in response to changes in the composition of output and employment, and not just in the level. This has been very clear during the pandemic, but there’s good reason to think it’s true in general.

Fourth, increasing returns are pervasive in real economies. This is a bit of a different argument than the first three, since it’s not pointing to a directly observable macro phenomenon. But it’s important here, because it means that we can’t assume that businesses are already using the lowest-cost technique and increasing output will cause unit costs to rise. One way of thinking about this is to imagine a cost landscape that is rugged, not smooth. Moving from one locally low-cost position to another may require traversing a higher cost region, which will appear as supply constraints during the transition. A clear example of this is the transition from carbon to renewable energy sources.

We also argue that this perspective is more consistent with a sociologically realistic view of what “the economy” is. Real economies are not homogeneous “factors” being added to a “production function” which then spits out some quantity of output. They are complex systems of cooperation between human beings, which are embedded in all kinds of other social relationships and the reproduction of households and other social organisms. These relationships cannot be torn up and recreated at any moment — changing them is costly. They evolve only gradually over time. From this point of view, it is wrong to divide the facts about the economic world into a set of long-run, fundamental, exogenous factors and short-run endogenous factors. Who is actually working, and at what, is as much a part of the economic data, no less easily shifted, than the number of people who are potentially available for work.

This way of thinking about the supply side has several implications for policy. First, rising prices and other signs of supply constraints cannot be taken as evidence for the long-run limits on the economy’s productive potential. In general, we should be skeptical of suggestions that recent rises in the prices of energy, food and other essential commodities reflect the “end of abundance”.

On the positive side, our view suggests that the response to positive output gaps should include not only conventional “supply side” measures, but measures to overcome the coordination and information problems and other frictions that limit rapid changes in productive activity. This implies planning of some sort, though not necessarily central planning in the traditional sense. Another implication is that because prices can adjust more quickly than productive activity can (the emphasis on price stickiness is backward in our view), rapid shifts in activity can generate large price spikes that are not informative about long-run production possibilities and produce undesirable shifts in income. This suggests that price regulation has an important role in smoothing the transition fro one pattern of activity to another.

Specific examples and evidence on all these points are in the paper. You should read it! A final point I want to emphasize here is that we are not saying that supply constraints are limits on adjustment speed in an absolute, universal sense. We are saying that insofar as we need a simple, first-cut description of the supply side, we will usually do better to imagine a constraint on adjustment speed rather than on the level of output and employment.

View Details

(I write a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This is the most recent one; you can find earlier ones here.)

Has the inflationary fever broken at last? The headline Consumer Price Index, which was rising at a 17 percent annual rate last June, actually fell in December. Other measures show a similar, if less dramatic, slowing of price growth. But before we all start congratulating the Federal Reserve, we should think carefully about what else we’re signing up for.

For Fed Chair Jerome Powell, it’s clear that slower price growth is not enough. Inflation may be coming down, but labor markets are still much too tight. “Nominal wages have been growing at a pace well above what would be consistent with 2 percent inflation over time,” he said recently, so “another condition we are looking for is the restoration of balance between supply and demand in the labor market.”

The model of the economy that the Fed is working with looks something like this: most prices are, at the end of the day, set as a markup over wages. Wage increases depend on the relative bargaining power of workers and employers, and that in turn depends on labor market tightness. Labor market tightness depends on aggregate demand, which the Fed can influence through interest rates. Yes, there are other influences on inflation; but it’s clear that for the Fed this story is central. Indeed, we might call it the Federal Reserve View.

Is this story a fair description of the real world? Yes and no.

A useful rule to remember is that the rise in average wages must equal the rise in the price of domestically-produced goods, plus productivity growth, plus the share of income going to workers. All else equal, higher wages mean higher prices. But all else is not always equal. It’s possible to have faster wage growth and stable inflation if profit margins are falling, or if productivity is rising, or if import prices are falling.

In the short run, these other factors can easily outweigh wage growth. Just look at the 10 years prior to the pandemic. Hourly wages grew almost twice as fast in the second half of the decade as in the first half — nearly 4 percent annually, versus 2 percent. Yet inflation as measured by the CPI was no higher over 2015-2019 than over 2010-2014. That was thanks to productivity growth, which accelerated significantly, and import prices, which declined. (Workers’ share of national income did not change significantly.)

On the other hand, there is a limit to how fast productivity can rise, or profit margins or import prices can fall. No one doubts that if wages were to rise by, say, 10 percent year after year, inflation would eventually rise.

Critics of the Fed have questioned whether these long-run relationships tell us much about the inflation we are seeing now. There are plenty of things that cannot go on forever but can, and should, go on for a while. Rapid wage gains might be one of them. While Powell clearly still sees wage growth as excessive, others might look at the latest Employment Cost Index—less than 1% growth, compared with 1.4% at the start of 2022—and see a problem taking care of itself.

The Fed’s current plan is to increase unemployment by 1 percent over the next year, throwing 1.6 million people out of work. If the link between labor market conditions and prices is not as tight as they think, that’s a lot of suffering being inflicted for no reason.

But there’s an even bigger problem with the Federal Reserve View: what else follows once you accept it. If price stability requires a weaker labor market – one in which employers have an easier time finding workers, and workers have a harder time finding jobs – that has implications that go far beyond monetary policy.

Take the Fair Trade Commission’s recent ban on non-compete clauses in employment contracts. When President Biden issued the executive order that led to this action, he explicitly framed it as a way of shifting bargaining power to workers and allowing them to demand higher pay. “If your employer wants to keep you,” he said, “he or she should have to make it worth your while to stay.”

This sounds like good news for workers. But here’s the problem: from the Fed’s point of view, businesses are already paying too much to hold onto their employees. As Powell has said repeatedly over the past year, there is currently a “real imbalance in wage negotiating” in favor of workers. He wants to make it harder for people to switch jobs, not easier. So if the non-compete ban delivers what the President promised, that will just mean that rates have to go up by more.

Or think about minimum wage laws. Thanks to widespread indexing, nearly half the states saw significant increases in their minimum wages at the start of this year. Others, like New York, are moving in this direction. For many people the case for indexing is obvious: It makes sure that the incomes of low-wage workers in retail, fast food and other services keep pace with rising prices. But for the Fed, these are exactly the wages that are already rising too fast. Higher minimum wages, from the Fed’s point of view, call for higher interest rates and unemployment.

There’s nothing new or secret about this. In a typical macroeconomics textbook, the first example of something that raises the “natural rate” of unemployment (the one the central bank targets) is more generous unemployment benefits, which encourage workers to hold out for higher wages.

Publicly, the Fed disavows any responsibility for labor market policy. But obviously, if your goal is to maintain a certain balance of power between workers and employers, anything that shifts that balance is going to concern you.

This problem had dropped from view in recent years, when the Fed was struggling to get inflation up to its target. But historically, there’s been a clear conflict between protecting workers and keeping unemployment low. Under Alan Greenspan, Fed officials often worried that any revival of organized labor could make the job of inflation control harder. Treasury Secretary Yellen made a version of this argument early on in her career at the Fed, observing that “lower unemployment benefits or decreased unionization could … result in a decline in workers’ bargaining power.” This, she explained, could be a positive development, since it would imply “a permanent reduction in the natural rate of unemployment.”

Unfortunately, the same logic works the other way too. Stronger unions, higher minimum wages, and other protections for workers must, if you accept the Federal Reserve View, result in a higher natural rate of unemployment — which means more restrictive monetary policy to bring it about.

It’s easy to understand why administration officials would say they trust the Fed to manage inflation, while they focus on being the most-pro-labor administration in history. Unfortunately, dividing things up this way may not be as simple as it sounds. If that’s what they think their job is, they may have to challenge how the Fed thinks about its own.

View Details

I’ve just been reading Keynes’ short sketches of Isaac Newton in Essays in Biography. (Is there any topic he wasn’t interesting on?) His thesis is that Newton was not so much the first modern scientist as “the last of the magicians” — “a magician who believed that by intense concentration of mind on traditional hermetics and revealed books he could discover the secrets of nature and the course of future events, just as by the pure play of mind on a few facts of observation he had unveiled the secrets of the heavens.”

The two pieces are fascinating in their own right, but they also crystallized something I’ve been thinking about for a while about the relationship between the methods and the subject matter of the physical sciences.

It’s no secret that Newton had an interest in the occult, astrology and alchemy and so on. Keynes’ argument is that this was not a sideline to his “scientific” work, but was his project, of which his investigations into mathematics and the physical world formed just a part. In Keynes’ words,

He looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to … mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements… but also partly in certain papers and traditions … back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. …

In Keynes’ view — supported by the vast collection of unpublished papers Newton left after his death, which Keynes made it his mission to recover for Cambridge — Newton looked for a mathematical pattern in the movements of the planets in exactly the same way as one would look for the pattern in a coded message or a secret meaning in a ancient text. Indeed, Keynes says, Newton did look in the same way for secret messages in ancient texts, with the same approach and during the same period in which he was developing calculus and his laws of motion.

There was extreme method in his madness. All his unpublished works on esoteric and theological matters are marked by careful learning, accurate method and extreme sobriety of statement. They are just as sane as the Principia, if their whole matter and purpose were not magical. They were nearly all composed during the same twenty-five years of his mathematical studies.

Even in his alchemical research, which superficially resembled modern chemistry, he was looking for secret messages. He was, says Keynes, “almost entirely concerned, not in serious experiment, but in trying to read the riddle of tradition, to find meaning in cryptic verses, to imitate the alleged but largely imaginary experiments of the initiates of past centuries.”

(There’s a resemblance here to Foucault’s discussion in The Order of Things of 16th century comparative anatomy, which superficially resembled modern biology but really “belongs to the same analogical cosmography as the comparison between apoplexy and tempests,” reflecting the idea that man “stands in proportion to the heavens just as he does to animals and plants.”)

Newton’s “scientific” work was an integral part of his search for ancient secrets and, perhaps, for him, not the most important part. Keynes approvingly quotes the words that George Bernard Shaw (drawing on some of the same material) puts in Newton’s mouth:

There are so many more important things to be worked at: the transmutations of matter, the elixir of life, the magic of light and color, above all the secret meaning of the Scriptures. And when I should be concentrating my mind on these I find myself wandering off into idle games of speculation about numbers in infinite series, and dividing curves into indivisibly short triangle bases. How silly!

None of this, Keynes insists, is to diminish Newton’s greatness as a thinker or the value of his achievements. His scientific accomplishments flowed from this same conviction that the world was a puzzle that would reveal some simple, logical, in retrospect obvious solution if one stared at it long enough. His greatest strength was his power of concentration, his ability to

hold a problem in his mind for hours and days and weeks until it surrendered to him its secret. Then being a supreme mathematical technician he could dress it up… for purposes of exposition, but it was his intuition which was pre-eminent … The proofs … were, as I have said, dressed up afterwards —they were not the instrument of discovery.

There is the story of how he informed Halley of one of his most fundamental discoveries of planetary motion. ‘Yes,’ replied Halley, ‘but how do you know that? Have you proved it?’ Newton was taken aback—’Why, I’ve known it for years,’ he replied. ‘ If you’ll give me a few days, I’ll certainly find you a proof of it’—as in due course he did.

This is a style of thinking that we are probably all familiar with — the conviction that a difficult problem must have an answer, and that once we see it in a flash of insight we’ll know that it’s right. (In movies and tv shows, intellectual work is almost only ever presented this way.) And some problems really do have answers like this! Many, of course, do not. But you can’t necessarily know in advance which is which.

Which brings me to the larger point I want to draw out of these essays. Newton was not wrong to think that if the motion of the planets could be explained by a simple, universal law expressible in precise mathematical terms, other, more directly consequential questions might be explained the same way. As Keynes puts it,

He did read the riddle of the heavens. And he believed that by the same powers of his introspective imagination he would read the riddle of the Godhead, the riddle of past and future events divinely fore-ordained, the riddle of the elements…, the riddle of health and of immortality.

It’s a cliché that economists suffer from physics envy. There is definitely some truth to this (though how much the object of envy resembles actual physics I couldn’t say.) The positive content of this envy might be summarized as follows: The techniques of physical sciences have yielded good results where they have been applied, in physics, chemistry, etc. So we should expect similar good results if we apply the same techniques to human society. If we don’t have a hard science of human society, it’s because no one has yet done the work to develop one. (Economists, it’s worth noting, are not alone in believing this.)

In Robert Solow’s critical but hardly uniformed judgement,

the best and the brightest in the profession proceed as if economics is the physics of society. There is a single universal model of the world. It only needs to be applied. You could drop a modern economist from a time machine … at any time in any place, along with his or her personal computer; he or she could set up in business without even bothering to ask what time and which place. In a little while, the up-to-date economist will have maximized a familiar-looking present-value integral, made a few familiar log-linear approximations, and run the obligatory familiar regression.

It’s not hard to find examples of this sort of time-machine economics. David Romer’s widely-used macroeconomics textbook, for example, offers pre-contact population density in Australia and Tasmania (helpfully illustrated with a figure going back to one million BC) as an illustration of endogenous growth theory. Whether you’re asking about GDP growth next year, the industrial revolution or the human population in the Pleistocene, it’s all the same equilibrium condition.

Romer’s own reflections on economics methodology (in an interview with Snowdon and Vane) are a perfect example of what I am talking about.

As a formal or mathematical science, economics is still very young. You might say it is still in early adolescence. Remember, at the same time that Einstein was working out the theory of general relativity in physics, economists were still talking to each other using ambiguous words and crude diagrams.

In other words, people who studied physical reality embraced precise mathematical formalism early, and had success. The people who studied society stuck with “ambiguous words and crude diagrams” and did not. Of course, Romer says, that is now being corrected. But it’s not surprising that with its late start, economics hasn’t yet produced as definite and useful knowledge as the physical science have.

This is where Newton comes in. His occult interests are a perfect illustration of why the Romer view gets it backward. The same techniques of mathematical formalization, the same effort to build up from an axiomatic foundation, the same search for precisely expressible universal laws, have been applied to the whole range of domains right from the beginning — often, as in Newton’s case, by the same people. We have not, it seems to me, gained useful knowledge of orbits and atoms because that’s where the techniques of physical science happen to have been applied. Those techniques have been consistently applied there precisely because that’s where they turned out to yield useful knowledge.

In the interview quoted above, Romer defends the aggregate production function (that “drove Robinson to distraction”) and Real Business Cycle Theory as the sort of radical abstraction science requires, “to strip things down to their bare essentials” and thoroughly grasp those before building back up to a more realistic picture.

There’s something reminiscent of Newton the mystic-scientist in this conviction that things like business cycles of production in a capitalist economy have an essential nature which can be grasped and precisely formalized without all the messy details of observable reality. It’s tempting to think that there must be one true signal hiding in all that noise. But I think it’s safe to say that there isn’t. As applied to certain physical phenomena, the idea that uniting apparently disparate phenomena is a single beautiful mathematical or geometric structure has been enormously productive. As applied to business cycles or industrial production, or human health and longevity, or Bible exegesis, it yields nonsense and crankery.

In his second sketch, Keynes quotes a late statement of Newton’s reflecting on his own work:

I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

I’m sure this quote is familiar to anyone who’s read anything about Newton, but it was new and striking to me. One way of reading it as support for the view that Newton’s scientific work was, in his mind, a sideshow to the really important inquiries which he had set aside. But another way is as a statement of what I think is arguably the essence of a scientific mindset – the willingness to a accept ignorance and uncertainty. My friend Peter Dorman once made an observation about science that has always stuck with me – that what distinguishes scientific thought is a disproportionate priority of avoiding Type I errors (accepting a false claim) over avoiding Type II errors (rejecting a true claim). Until an extraordinary degree of confidence can be reached, one should simply say “I don’t know”.

It seems to me that if social scientists large going to borrow something from the practices of Newton and his successors, it shouldn’t be an aversion to “ambiguous words,” the use calculus or geometric proofs, or the formulation of universal mathematical laws. It should be his recognition of the vast ocean of our ignorance. We need to accept that most on important questions we don’t know the answers and probably cannot know them. Then maybe we can recognize the small pebbles of knowledge that are accessible to us.

View Details

(I wrote this list at the beginning of 2021 but for some reason never posted it. I figured it’s worth putting up now – they’re all still good books.)

Books I read in 2020. None of them were life-changing, but several were very good.

Weather, by Jenny Offill. A small graceful novel about middle-class life against the background of climate change.

The Mirror and the Light, by Hilary Mantel. Final installment of the Thomas Cromwell trilogy. Better than the second, not as good as the first, in my opinion. Gripping as the others as a story, and shifts our perspective on the central character in some interesting ways, but much of the most interesting history of the period (like the Pilgrimage of Grace) happens oddly offstage, and the central conflict between Cromwell and Henry VIII is never properly motivated. Was Archbishop Cranmer’s protege really a true-believing Protestant reformer all along?

Poor Numbers: How We Are Misled by African Development Statistics and What to Do about It, by Morten Jerven. GDP and other national accounts numbers for poor countries (and for the distant past everywhere) are bullshit. Sorry but it’s true. I read this because I was thinking of assigning it; I ultimately didn’t, but it’s a good book.

The Causality Mixtape, by Scott Cunningham. Another one I read in order to use in a class. Good, clear, accessible, but it also reinforced my sense that there’s something fundamentally wrong with econometrics. I think there is a deep reason why so many textbook examples are about how much of pay differences are due to differences in innate ability – that is the kind of question econometrics is designed to answer. Anyway, if you’re teaching (or taking) a class on statistics or econometrics, you might well want to look at this. Otherwise, not.

The Histories, by Herodotus (Landmark edition). I’m trying to think of a way to not sound like an asshole when I say that I read all this to 8-year old Eli, and that we are now reading Thucydides. Nope, no luck. (ETA: We finished Thucydides and moved on to Xenophon.)

The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes, by Zach Carter. The first two thirds of this is a quite good and timely biography of Keynes. It benefits from the fact that author is a journalist rather than an economist — his interest is in how Keynes’ various writings were responding to particular political situations, rather than trying to fit them all into one coherent system. And then the last third is random gossip about postwar economists and greatest hits from the wikipedia “macroeconomic policy” page. Oh well.

Radical Hamilton: Economic Lessons from a Misunderstood Founder, by Christian Parenti. Christian is an old friend and colleague. I read most of this in draft, but I reread it this year after it came out. It’s very good.

The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy, by Stephanie Kelton. I reviewed it in The American Prospect. I also discussed it at more length on the Current Affairs podcast.

Keynes against Capitalism: His Economic Case for Liberal Socialism, by Jim Crotty. Another one I read in draft, years ago in this case. The ideas in this book, and in the articles that preceded it (especially this one), and even more all the conversations with Jim over the 20 years since I first studied macroeconomics with him, have so fundamentally shaped my thinking about Keynes and about economics that honestly it’s hard to evaluate the book as a book. But I think it’s important, and very good. Maybe read the articles first?

The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism, by Edward Baptist. I used this in my economic history class last spring. It works very well in the classroom — reads like a novel, and very effectively connects concrete experiences of slavery to economic logic of the system as a whole. There have been a number of claims that the book misrepresents or distorts the material it draws on in the service of its larger narrative, at least some of which unfortunately seem to be valid. I still haven’t decided whether/to what extent these problems cancel out the book’s merits.

Labor’s War At Home: The CIO In World War II, by Nelson Lichtenstein. This was one that had been sitting on my shelves for years and years, which I finally picked up while working on my articles on WWII economic policy with Andrew Bossie (here and here). In those papers we emphasized the positive lessons from the war, but the book gives a sense of the much more radical direction wartime economic planning might have gone in, but didn’t.

Zapata and the Mexican Revolution, by John Womack. Read this after listening to the Mexican revolution series on the Revolutions podcast, which draws on it heavily. If you’re looking for a genuine hero, someone thoroughly admirable, in the history of radical politics, I don’t know that you can do better than Zapata.

American Slavery American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia, by Edmund Morgan. Another book I read in order to use in my economic history class. A classic for a reason.

Pale Horse, Pale Rider, by Katherine Anne Porter Laura was casting around for fiction dealing with the 1918 flu pandemic, which is surprisingly hard to find, and finally lighted on this. It’s a beautiful set of three linked novellas, wrestling in different ways with the ways in which one’s choices are or should be constrained by one’s personal or family past. (Only one involves the influenza epidemic.) The middle story (“Noon Wine”) is especially striking for the fully realized interior life granted its rural, working-class characters, which you never find in writing about similar milieus by someone like Faulkner.

Freedom From the Market: America’s Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand, by Mike Konczal. Mike is one of the few people in the world that I agree with about almost everything, so naturally I agreed with everything in this book. Reading it felt like picking up loose ends from numerous conversations over the past five or six years: oh, that’s where that was going. Well, that’s why I liked it, but you would probably like it too. It’s a good book.

Previous editions:

2019 books

2017 Books

2016 books

2015 books

2013 books

2012 books I

2012 books II

2010 books I

2010 books II

View Details

There has been a lot of debate about whether the high inflation of 2021-2022 has been due mainly to supply or demand factors. Joe Stiglitz and Ira Regmi have a new paper from Roosevelt making the case for supply disruptions as the decisive factor. It’s the most thorough version of that case that I’ve seen, and I agree with almost all of it. I highly recommend reading it.

What I want to do in this post is something different. I want to clarify what it would mean, if inflation were in fact driven by demand. Because there are two quite distinct stories here that I think tend to get mixed up.

In the textbook story, production takes place with constant returns to scale and labor as the only input. (We could introduce other inputs like land or imports without affecting the logic.) Firms have market power, so price are set as a positive markup over unit costs. The markup depends on various things (regulations, market structure, etc.) but not on the current level of output. With constant output per worker, this means that the real wage and wage share are also constant.

The nominal wage, however, depends on the state of the labor market. The lower the unemployment rate, and the more bargaining power workers have, the higher the wage they will be in a position to demand. (We can think of this as an expected real wage, or as a rate of change from current wages.) When unemployment falls, workers command higher wages; but given markup pricing, these higher wages are simply passed on to higher prices. If we think of wages as a decreasing function of unemployment, there will be a unique level of unemployment where wage growth is equal to productivity growth plus the target inflation rate.

The conventional story of demand and inflation, from Blanchard. With constant returns to scale and a fixed markup, the real wage is unaffected by short-run changes in output and employment.You can change this in various ways without losing the fundamental logic. If there are non-labor costs, then rising nominal wages can be passed less than one for one, and tight labor markets may result in faster real wage growth along with higher inflation. But there will still be a unique level of wage growth, and underlying labor-market conditions, that is consistent with the central bank’s target. This is the so-called NAIRU or natural rate of unemployment. You don’t hear that term as much as you used to, but the logic is very present in modern textbooks and the Fed’s communications.

There’s a different way of thinking about demand and inflation, though, that you hear a lot in popular discussions — variations on “too much money chasing too few goods.” In this story, rather than production being perfectly elastic at a given cost, production is perfectly inelastic — the amount of output is treated as fixed. (That’s what it means to talk about “too few goods”.) In this case, there is no relationship between costs of production and prices. Instead, the price ends up at the level where demand is just equal to the fixed quantity of goods.

In this story, there is no relationship between wages and prices — or at least, the former has no influence on the latter. Profit maximizing businesses will set their price as high as they can and still sell their available stocks, regardless of what it cost to produce them.

In the first story, the fundamental scarcity is inputs, meaning basically labor. In the second, what is scarce is final goods. Both of these are stories about how an increase in the flow of spending can cause prices to rise. But the mechanism is different. In the first case, transmission happens through the labor market. In the second, labor market conditions are at best an indicator of broader scarcities. In the first story, the inflation barrier is mediated by all sorts of institutional factors that can change the market power of businesses and the bargaining power of workers. In the second story it comes straightforwardly from the quantity of stuff available for purchase.

What we do not want to do at this point is to say that one of these stories is right and the other is wrong. Our goal is simply to clarify what people are saying. Substantively, both could be wrong.

Or, both could be right, but in different contexts.

If we imagine cost curves as highly convex, it’s very natural to think of these two cases as describing two different situations or regimes or time scales in the same economy.1 Imagine something like the figure below. At a point like c, marginal costs are basically constant, and shifts in demand simply result in changes in output. At a point like b, on the other hand, output is very inelastic, and shifts in demand result almost entirely in changes in price.

convex cost (or supply) curveNote that we can still have price equal to marginal cost, or a fixed markup to it, in both cases. It’s just that in the steeply upward-sloping section, price determines cost rather than vice versa.

Another point here is that once we are facing quantity constraints, the markup over average cost (which is all that we can normally observe) is going to rise. But this doesn’t necessarily reflect an increase in the markup over (unobservable) marginal cost, or any change in producers’ market power or pricing decisions.

We might think of this at the level of a firm, an industry or the economy as a whole. Normally, production is at a point like a — capitalists will invest to the point where capacity is a bit greater than normal levels of output. As long as production is taking place within the normal level of utilization, marginal costs are constant. But once normal capacity is exceeded by more than some reasonable margin, costs rise rapidly.

This framework does a couple of things. First, it clarifies that demand can lead to higher prices in two different ways. First, it shifts the demand curve (not shown here, but you can imagine a downward-sloping diagonal line) up and to the right. Second, insofar as it raises wages, it shifts the cost curve upward. The first effect does not matter for prices as long production is within normal capacity limits. The second effect does not matter once production has exceeded those limits.

Second, it helps explain why shifts in the composition of output led to a rise in the overall price level. Imagine a situation where most industries were at a position like a, operating at normal capacity levels. A big change in the mix of demand would shift some to b and others to c. The first would see lower output at their old prices, while the latter would see little increase in output but a big rise in prices. This has nothing to do with price stickiness or anything like that. It simply reflects the fact that it’s easy to produce at less than full capacity and very hard to produce much above it.

ETA: One of the striking features of the current disinflation is that it is happening without any noticeable weakening of the labor market. We could see that as just one more piece of evidence for the Stiglitz-Regmi position that it was (transitory0 supply problems all along. But if you really want to credit the Fed, you could use the framework here to do it. Something like this:

In a sustained situation of strong demand, businesses will expect to be able to sell more in the future, and will invest enough to raise capacity in line with output. So the cost curve will shift outward as demand rises, and production will remain In the normal capacity, constant marginal cost range. In this situation, the way that demand is raising prices is via wages. (Unlike business capacity, the labor force does not, in this story, respond to demand.) Rising wages raise costs even at normal utilization levels, so the only way that policy can slow process growth is via weaker labor markets that reduce wage growth. But, when demand rises rapidly and unexpectedly, capacity will not be able to keep up in the short run, and we’ll end up on the righthand, steeply upward sloping part of the cost curve. At this point, price increases are not coming from wages or the cost side in general. Businesses cannot meaningful increase output in the short run, so prices are determined from the demand side rather than as a markup. In this context, price stability calls for policy to reduce desired purchases to what business can currently produce (presumably by reducing aggregate income). In principle this can happen without higher unemployment or slower wage growth.

I personally am not inclined to credit the Fed with a soft landing, even if all the inflation news is good from here on out. But if you do want to tell that story, convex supply curves are something you might like to have in your toolkit.

View Details

On December 2-3, 2022, the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (where I did my economics PhD) will be hosting a conference on “Global Inflation Today: What Is To Be Done?” I will be speaking on “Rethinking Supply Constraints,” a new project I am working on with Arjun Jayadev. Our argument is … Continue reading Slides on “Rethinking Supply Constraints”

View Details

(I write a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This is my contribution for November 2022.) How much of our inflation problem is really a housing-cost problem? During the first half of 2021, vehicle prices accounted for almost the whole rise in inflation. For much of this year, it was mostly energy prices. But today, the prices … Continue reading At Barron’s: Rate Hikes Are the Wrong Cure for Rising Housing Costs

View Details

(This review appeared in the Summer 2022 edition of Jacobin.) After the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, universal health insurance seemed to be on its way. In 1971, the New York Times observed that “Americans from all strata of society … are swinging over to the idea that good health care, like good education, ought to … Continue reading At Jacobin: Review of Beth Popp Berman’s Thinking Like an Economist

View Details

(I write a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in September.) Almost everyone, it seems, now agrees that higher interest rates mean economic pain. This pain is usually thought of in terms of lost jobs and shuttered businesses. Those costs are very real. But there’s another cost of rate increases that … Continue reading At Barron’s: Americans Owe Less Than They Used To. Will the Fed Change That?

View Details

Back in the 2010s, Arjun Jayadev and I wrote a pair of papers (one, two) on the evolution of debt-income ratios for US households. This post updates a couple key findings from those papers. (The new stuff begins at the table below.) Rather than econometric exercises, the papers were based on a historical accounting decomposition … Continue reading Fisher Dynamics Revisited

View Details

(I am now writing a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in August.) The labor market is exceptionally tight, at least by the standards of recent history. That matters for monetary policy, but its importance goes beyond inflation, or even material living standards. We are used to a world where workers … Continue reading At Barron’s: What’s At Stake in the Labor Market?

View Details

(I am now writing a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in July.) To listen to economic policy debates today, you would think the U.S. economy has just one problem: inflation. When Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was asked at his last press conference if there was a danger in going … Continue reading At Barron’s: What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Inflation

View Details

One way current debates over inflation sometimes get framed is whether it’s driven by supply or demand. Critics of the ARPA and other stimulus measures point to various lines of evidence to suggest that rising prices are coming from the demand side, not the supply side; and of course you can find the opposite arguments … Continue reading Demand, Supply, Both, or Neither?

View Details

Elon Musk’s pending purchase of Twitter is an occasion for thinking, again, about what function stock markets perform in modern capitalism. The original form of wealth in a capitalist society is control over some production process. If you become a wealthy capitalist, what this means at the outset is that you have authority over people … Continue reading What Is the Stock Market For?

View Details

(I am an occasional contributor to roundtables of economists in the magazine The International Economy. This month’s topic was the possible dangers of “today’s giant swirling ocean of liquidity”.) Imagine a city that experiences a miraculous improvement in its transit system. Thanks to some mix of new technologies and organizational improvements, the subways and buses are now … Continue reading At the International Economy: What’s Wrong with Abundant Liquidity?

View Details

Last week, my Roosevelt colleague Mike Konczal said on twitter that he endorsed the Fed’s decision to raise the federal funds rate, and the larger goal of using higher interest rates to weaken demand and slow growth. Mike is a very sharp guy, and I generally agree with him on almost everything. But in this … Continue reading Inflation, Interest Rates and the Fed: A Dissent

View Details

(This post originally ran as an opinion piece in Barron’s.) The U.S. today is experiencing inflation. This is not controversial. But what exactly does it mean? In the textbook, inflation is a rise in all prices together, caused by an excessive increase in the money supply. But when we measure it, inflation is just a … Continue reading Today’s Inflation Won’t be Solved by the Fed

View Details

One of the things we see in the questions of monetary policy transmission discussed in my Barron’s piece is the real cost of an orthodox economics education. If your vision of the economy is shaped by mainstream theory, it is impossible to think about what central banks actually do. The models taught in graduate economics … Continue reading No Maestros: Further Thoughts

View Details

(A week ago, I had an opinion piece in Barron’s, which I am belatedly posting here. I talk a bit more about this topic in the following post.) In today’s often acrimonious economic debates, one of the few common grounds is reverence for the Fed. Consider Jay Powell: First nominated to the Fed’s board of … Continue reading At Barron’s: There Are No Maestros

View Details

(This is the extended abstract for a piece I am writing for “The Great Turnaround,” a collection of essays on the economics of decarbonization from ZOE-Institute for Future-fit Economies and the Heinrich Böll Foundation.) In the world in which we live, large-scale cooperation is largely organized through payments of money. Orthodox economics conflates these money flows, on … Continue reading Climate Policy from a Keynesian Perspective

View Details

(Lauren Melodia and I had an op-ed in the Nov. 21 Washington Post, challenging the idea that today’s inflation means that the stimulus measures of the past year and half were too large. I’m posting it here as well.) As we think about rising prices today, it’s important not to lose sight of where we were not … Continue reading “Inflation is bad. But mass unemployment would have been worse.”

View Details

The other day, I put up a post arguing, on the basis of my analysis of the income data in the Current Population Survey, that the economic disruptions from the pandemic had not led to any reduction in real income for the lowest-income families. This is the opposite of the Great Recession, and presumably earlier … Continue reading “Earnings Shocks and Stabilization During COVID-19”

View Details

The coronavirus crisis has been different from normal recessions in many ways, but one of the most important is the scale of the macroeconomic response to it. Thanks to the stimulus payments, the pandemic unemployment insurance, the child tax credit, and a raft of other income support measures, this is the first recession in history … Continue reading A C-Shaped Recovery?

View Details

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post on the logic of pay-fors.

The key point of that post was that you might support the principle that public spending ought to be be paid for, even if you did not believe that government faces a genuine financing constraint. Specifically, you might think that linking spending to tax increases would (1) enforce a stricter prioritization of public spending, eliminating programs of minimal or negative social value that would otherwise be adopted; and/or, (2) create pressure for desirable but politically. challenging tax increases, including higher taxes on concentrated income and wealth.

I thought it was worth spelling this out because there are a nontrivial number of people in the liberal-to-left world whose hostility to the idea that the government is financially unconstrained seems to be on these grounds — that the spending thus enabled would be positively harmful, and/or that the only way we will see higher taxes on the rich is if somebody has to pay for the stuff we want government to do. These arguments get lost when the debate is framed in terms of the economics of public debt, so I wanted to surface them explicitly.

The premise of the post was that these views were sincerely held. I think that’s generally a good premise to start with. But it’s also, more or less by definition, a superficial one. In reality views are not always sincere.

We know there are many people who express concerns about deficits in a strategic way, to disguise substantive objections to public spending as concerns over how it is financed. The real goal is to impose strict limits on the domain of the public sector, and preserve the tyranny of property owners outside of the public’s delineated sphere.

The idea that constraints on public finance are part of a broader project to insulate the economy from democratic control is a familiar one at this point. Whether we’re talking about New York in the 1970s or Greece in the 2010s, instead of saying “the government had to roll back social spending because of a fiscal crisis,” we might better say “the government had to have a fiscal crisis so it would roll back social spending.”1 In the euro area, this teleology is right out in the open. You can find the more general case for it in books like Gindin and Panitch’s Making of Global Capitalism or Slobodian’s Globalists.

A more recent version is in Grégoire Chamayou’s The Ungovernable Society: A Genealogy of Authoritarian Liberalism, which I’ve just been reading. (And which prompted me to write this post.) The book is sort of a compendium of arguments over the past 50 years for why and how democratic politics should be excluded from economic questions. I don’t know that it adds much new to the story (especially since it is almost entirely US-focused) but it does assemble a lot of useful material in one place.

In Chamayou’s chapter on government budgets, he summarizes the authoritarian-liberal position as: “Balance is not a value in itself. The overriding objective is the reduction of the state budget.” Or more precisely, not necessarily reduction in quantitative terms, but limitation to certain strictly delineated ends.

The first witness he calls is Hayek, who makes the case for balanced-budget requirements in explicitly political terms: “Democracy needs even more severe restraints on the discretionary powers government can exercise than other forms of government.” The reason to enshrine restrictions on debt-financed public spending is to “make all socialist measures for redistribution impossible.”

James Buchanan is then brought in to carry the argument to the next step: “What if ordinary politics cannot balance the budget?” His answer (in Chamayou’s paraphrase) is to “short-circuit the process by formulating a higher rule that will compel it to do so.” Chamayou quotes his 1977 book Democracy in Deficit to the effect that “all of our ills … stem from Keynesian destruction of balanced budgets”; public budgets “cannot be left adrift in the sea of democratic politics.”

Milton Friedman is another central figure in the rogues gallery of neoliberalism, and naturally he also shows up in the Chamayou chapter: “‘The reason a balanced budget is important,’ Friedman continues, ‘is primarily for political, not economic reasons; to make sure that if Congress is going to vote for higher spending, it must also vote for higher taxes’ — something that a parliamentarian … will balk at doing.”

In this view, what superficially appear to be costs of government financing constraints — that activities that could in principle be better performed by the state must be left to private businesses — are in fact the reason for imposing such constraints in the first place.

This is all at a very high level of abstraction. But it’s obviously relevant for current debates.

That said, at the moment, it’s not clear how central the question of “paying for it” is to whatever expansion of the public sector we’ll see in 2021.

At an earlier stage, it certainly mattered. The need to offset spending increases with tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere was an important consideration in the initial iteration of the Build Back Better agenda, both for procedural reasons and as a substantive commitment by at least some of the Democratic leadership. But it’s less clear that it’s a major factor in the resistance it’s currently facing. From where I’m sitting — I just read the newspapers like everyone else — it appears that the most important objections have less to do with how or whether spending is paid for, and more with the spending itself. Joe Manchin does talk about the “burden of debt” we are leaving our children, and he may well be sincere in that, groundless as those fears seem to you or me. But he talks more about the dangers of an entitlement society, and those objections are more consequential — they can’t be resolved with concessions elsewhere, since they go directly to what the Build Back Better program is trying to do.

If a smaller bill turns out to be unavoidable, I personally would rather have a narrower bill that perhaps drops some of the current goals, while the programs it does create are permanent, universal and come into effect immediately. That seems preferable, from the perspective of materially improving people’s lives, and setting the stage for further future expansions of the public sector, and improving the Dems’ prospects in the midterms next year, than a bill that notionally does everything but gives ground on phase-ins and means tests and sunset provisions. But if it’s specifically the universality that Manchin and company object to, there may be no compromise in that direction.

And that is the point. My personal preferences don’t matter. But if one is going to make arguments within a public debate, it’s important to think carefully about where the arguments one is trying to overcome are really coming from.

View Details

One of the central economic debates among progressives is over the necessity or desirability of accompanying new public spending with similar-sized tax increases. In recent years perhaps the most visible, or at least the most heated, instances of this debate have been around Modern Mone(tar)y Theory. But the debate itself is broader and older.

These debates are in part about economic questions — both what the constraints on issuing new public-sector liabilities (“borrowing”) are in principle, and of how close we are to those constraints in practice. But a second and arguably more important dimension of the debate is political: In a public or legislative debate, what are the advantages and disadvantages of linking proposals for public spending with proposals for increased taxes?

I think it’s useful to think of this second question in terms of the grid of possibilities below. Some of this may seem obvious, but I find it’s sometimes helpful to spell out even obvious points.

On the horizontal axis we have spending relative to the baseline, from less to more. This axis also describes the political priority of the new spending — if there is to be only a small increase in spending, it will presumably go to items that are deemed highest value by the budget authorities, while greater overall spending allows for lower value items. Assuming that we think the priorities of the political process at least somewhat reflect social value, points at the far right can be thought of as socially useless or “waste”.

The vertical axis shows tax increases relative to the baseline, from less to more. Again, this also has a qualitative dimension. Modest tax increases can be targeted, for instance on higher incomes or on socially undesirable products or activities (Pigouvian taxes). But in order to raise large amounts of revenue, broad-based taxes are needed.1 The upper left corner, then, represents the status quo; the diagonal line coming down from it represents proposals that are fully paid for, that leave the expected fiscal balanced unchanged. Points above the line represent shifts toward fiscal surpluses, while points below it represent shifts toward deficit. If you think that spending to some degree pays for itself through Keynesian and/or supply side effects, you can imagine the slope of the diagonal line being flatter.

Remember: This is just a conceptual diagram, useful for organizing the debate. It doesn’t imply any substantive claims about what particular forms of spending will be prioritized by the political process, or what particular taxes should be seen as desirable for their own sake. And “status quo” here just means the null, what will happen if nothing happens, which might or might not be a continuation of current spending and tax policies.

Since I want to focus on the political question here, let’s stipulate that the budget balance itself isn’t economically important. So we can assess our preferred spending and tax proposals independently. We will want whatever progressive and Pigouvian taxes are desirable for their own sake, indicated by the blue bar on the left of the figure. And we will want whatever level of spending is required to meet urgent social needs, indicated by the blue bar at the top of the figure. Both of these will be modified based on current macroeconomic conditions — unemployment calls for more spending and/or lower taxes, while sustained inflation calls for less spending and/or higher taxes. (That’s why they are ranges rathe than points.) Thus the social optimal mix of spending and taxes will fall in the region marked with blue dotted lines.2

The question is now, what is the effect of linking spending changes with revenue changes — of requiring that new spending be “paid for”?

In general, it is to shift the policy debate away from the upper right and toward the lower left. This is shown by the various red arrows in the the figure, all of which represent trajectories from budget deficit toward surplus. The different arrows reflect the extent to which the pay-for requirement is felt more strongly on the expenditure side (the flatter arrow) or the tax side (the steeper arrow), and what kinds of proposals you think are likely to be put forward in the absence of such a requirement.

Independently of where you think the socially optimal region is located, your judgement about the desirability of pay-for requirements will depend on what mix of spending cuts and revenue increases you think will result from it; what outcome you expect in its absence; and how you prioritize getting close to the optimum on the expenditure side versus on the revenue side. The argument of this post is that where people fall on paying for public spending depends more on these political judgments than on disagreements about economics.

Here are some cases, corresponding to the arrows in the picture:

Arrow a reflects a view that the main effect of pay-for requirements is to impose priorities on spending. In this view, the normal outcome of the legislative process when large spending increases are proposed is to increase them even further, with items of limited or negative social value. So the main effect of fiscal constraints, in this view, is to force the budget authorities to focus on higher-priority items.3 This is reflected in an arrow that moves mainly to the left out of the “waste” region, toward the social optimum. This, I think, captures the view of the Obama team in 2009 and of prominent Obamanauts still in public life.

Arrow b is even flatter, and starts further to the left. This reflects a similar judgement that the main effect of pay-for requirements is to limit spending, but also that the bias of the political system is toward too little spending and that tax increases are politically very difficult. In this view, the main effect of a pay-for requirement is to make it likely that socially valuable spending will not take place. This is the view of most people in the progressive macro space today, as far as I can tell. Here is a version of this argument from some of my colleagues at the Roosevelt Institute.

Arrow c is steeper, moving directly toward the balanced-budget line. This reflects a judgement that a pay-for requirement will result in a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Unlike the first two lines, which clearly move toward and away from the social optimum, respectively, this one is ambiguous on that point. This arrow, I think, captures where a lot of people around the Biden administration are right now. There is a range of views about what kind of fiscal position is appropriate in current conditions, and no significant commitment to balanced budgets as such. But there is, or has been, a strong view that it’s not possible to pass further large deficit-financed spending increases through Congress, in which case it’s important to preemptively move the debate (in the terms of the diagram) towards the diagonal. There’s also a view — reflected in the position of the arrow — that even if a pay-for requirement means the loss of some useful spending, the revenue raisers it encourages may be socially desirable for their own sake.

Finally, arrow d is even steeper, and starts higher up. This reflects a judgement that the main effect of pay-for requirements is to create pressure for higher taxes, and that this is a good thing. In this view, the main effect of “Keynesian” deficit financing is to allow the rich to escape the burden of paying for public spending, spending which will take place one way or the other. This is a minority but not fringe position on the left. It’s especially pronounced among MMT critics who attribute the school’s prominence to the fact that rich people welcome an excuse not to be taxed.

Broadly then, we have views that pay-for requirements are: politically helpful, because they reduce wasteful spending; politically harmful, because they reduce valuable spending; an unfortunate necessity, because deficit increases are politically harder than raising revenue; and politically helpful, because they motivate taxes on the rich.

Again, all of this may seem a bit obvious. But I think it’s worth spelling out, because there’s some avoidable confusion that comes from treating as economic disagreements what are actually differing judgements about the contours of political possibility.

Between the two “left” positions (b and d), for example, you could put it this way: If we’re looking at a big expansion of public spending, what’s the effect of adding a requirement that it be paid for? Relative to the case without the requirement, it is more likely that we will get both the spending and a progressive tax increase. But it is also more likely that we won’t get the spending at all, or get less of it. How you trade these off against each other depends not just on your assessment of the relative likelihood, but also the relative importance you assign to the two goals. If you think that income inequality and the political power of the rich is the existential problem of our times, and progressive taxes are the only tool to rein it in, it’s not unreasonable to, in effect, hold public spending hostage in order to win them. If you think that other problems or more important, or there are other tools, you’ll feel differently.

My purpose here is not to say that any of these views is right or wrong. I’m just trying to clarify what’s being argued about.

That said, here is the news story that prompted me to finally sit down and write this post. It’s a Financial Times article with the eye-catching headline “‘A Humiliating Climbdown’”:

This week Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat and the leading tax writer in the House of Representatives, released his plan for $2.9tn in tax increases to fund Biden’s $3.5tn package… Neal’s proposal includes an increase in the top individual income tax rate from 37 per cent to 39.6 per cent, yet shies away from more aggressively targeting taxes on capital gains, the source of a huge share of wealth for millionaires and billionaires.

… The changes to Biden’s tax plan proposed in the House highlight the extent of the backlash among Democratic donors, lobbyists and constituents who have balked at the president’s efforts to tax wealth — especially capital gains.

**The point is, in this case at least, the link to tax increases seems to be making House Dems less likely to vote for something that includes them, not more likely. And this is especially true for the progressive income and wealth taxes that are central to the progressive case for pay-fors.

Even more than to the intra-left debate I just mentioned, the article speaks to the pragmatic mainstream case for pay-fors. One sometimes hears people say, ok, you’re right, there isn’t any real economic argument for matching spending and revenue. With interest rates on public debt still well below anything seen in US history before 2020, it’s hard to argue with a straight face that financial markets limit the US government’s ability to borrow. But, they say, there are still political constraints — at some point Congress is not going to pass more spending financed with debt.

In the view in which pay-fors are politically helpful, the space of political possibility slopes downward from upper right to lower left. The less borrowing you ask people to vote for, the easier it is. By committing to fully paying for all new spending, you are more likely to end up with a package that can make it past all the various veto points. But things like the FT article suggests that this isn’t the case — that the gradient of political feasibility instead slopes from bottom to top. The less revenue you need, the easier.

In Arjun Jayadev’s and my piece on MMT and mainstream economics, we argued that differences between the two schools mostly “involve practical judgement about policy execution rather than any fundamental difference about how policy works in principle.” We continued:

We suspect that most in the mainstream macroeconomic policy world reject a functional finance rule not because they believe that it would not work if followed, but because they believe it would not in fact be followed. There is a widely shared though not always explicitly theorized presumption in mainstream policy discussions that macroeconomic policy in democratic polities suffers from a systematic bias toward deficits and inflation… Conversely, many MMT advocates believe that policymakers operating under a conventional assignment consistently err in the direction of accepting unemployment higher than required to maintain stable prices. … These judgements about the most likely direction of policy error are quite important for evaluating alternative policy rules, but they do not depend on any difference in strictly economic analysis.

That still seems right to me.

So which, then, seems more plausible? “Congress can’t pass something that will raise the deficit, so we need to find revenues to offset our spending,” versus “Congress hates raising taxes, so we need to be ready to accept higher deficits if we want higher spending.”

Or again, which seems more plausible? “In the absence of some kind of financial constraint — even an artificial or imaginary one — we’ll see a wave of wasteful or even socially harmful spending,” versus, “Even in the absence of financial constraints, any expansion of the public sector has to overcome all kinds of hurdles and resistance.”

I am arguing against my own interest as an economist here. But I suspect that clarifying what we believe — and why — on these kinds of questions would at this point advance the conversation around paying for public spending more than more narrowly economic analysis would.

View Details

A point I’ve been emphasizing about inflation (see here and here) is that it is just an average of price changes; it doesn’t have any independent existence.

One implication of this is that there is not, even in principle, a true inflation rate. Pick any basket of goods and measure their prices over time; that is an inflation rate. The “all urban consumers” basket used by the BLS for the headline CPI inflation rate is a useful benchmark, but it’s just one basket among others. Any individual household or subgroup of households will have its own consumption basket and corresponding inflation rate.

Because a small number of items have gone up in price a lot recently, the average price increase in the CPI basket is greater than increase in wages over the past year. In this sense, real wages have gone down. I am not convinced this is a meaningful statistic. For one thing, car prices are almost certain to come back down over the next year, once the current semiconductor bottleneck is relieved and manufacturers ramp up output. Wage gains, on the other hand, have a lot of inertia. This year’s wage gains are likely to continue; certainly they will not be given back.

But there’s another reason the “falling real wage” claim is misleading. When price increases are concentrated in a few areas, the inflation rate facing people who are buying stuff in those areas will be very different from the rate facing those who are not. Most Americans do buy a car every few years, but relatively few need to buy a car right now.1 And even averaged over time, different groups of people spend more or less on cars relative to other things. The same goes for other categories of spending.

The BLS’s Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) tries to measure the distribution of consumption spending by different demographic groups. In principle, you could construct a separate CPI for each group, like CPI-E the BLS reports for elderly households. (For what it’s worth the CPI-E increased by 4.8 percent over the past year, a bit slower than the headline rate.) In practice the challenges in doing this are formidable — for the headline measure weights can be based on retail sales, but the weights for demographic group have to be based on household surveys, which are slower and much less reliable. (I have some discussion of these issues in Section 7 of this paper.) Still, the CEX can give us at least a rough sense of the difference in consumption baskets and inflation rates across different groups.

It’s particularly interesting to look at consumption baskets across income groups. One of the central arguments for running the economy hot is that it tends to compress wages. From this point of view, an increase in prices paid disproportionately by lower income households is more concerning than a similar aggregate increase in prices paid more by the better off.

For this post, I chose to focus on the consumption basket of households with pre-tax income below $30,000 a year — about one quarter of the population.

In the table below, I show 20 items, accounting for almost 95% of the CPI basket. The first column shows its share of the CPI-U basket, taken from the most recent CPI Table 2. The second column shows the difference between the weight of the item in consumption by households earning less than $30,000 and its weight in total consumption.2 So a positive value means something that makes up a larger share of consumption for households with incomes under $30,000 than of consumption for the population as a whole. This comes from the most recent Consumer Expenditure Survey, covering July 2019 through June 2020. The third column shows the price change of that item from July 2020 to July 2021, again from CPI Table 2. The items are ordered from the ones that make up the largest relative share of the consumption basket for low-income households to the ones that make up the smallest relative share. So it gives at least a rough sense of the different inflations experienced by lower versus higher income families.

| Expenditure Category | Overall share (CPI) | Relative share, income <$30k (CEX) | Inflation, July 2020-July 2021 (CPI) | | Rent of primary residence | 7.6 | 8.3 | 1.9 | | Food at home | 7.6 | 2.4 | 2.6 | | Electricity | 2.5 | 1.5 | 4 | | Medical care services | 7.1 | 1 | 0.8 | | Medical care commodities | 1.5 | 0.35 | -2.1 | | Recreation commodities | 2.0 | 0.35 | 3.2 | | Water and sewer and trash collection | 1.1 | 0.3 | 3.7 | | Education and communication services | 6.1 | 0.2 | 1.2 | | Motor fuel | 3.8 | 0.2 | 41.6 | | Utility (piped) gas service | 0.7 | 0.2 | 19 | | Apparel | 2.7 | 0.2 | 4.2 | | Motor vehicle parts and equipment | 0.4 | 0.05 | 4.3 | | Fuel oil and other fuels | 0.2 | 0.05 | 30.9 | | New vehicles | 3.7 | -0.15 | 6.4 | | Transportation services | 5.3 | -0.15 | 6.4 | | Lodging away from home | 1.0 | -0.3 | 21.5 | | Used cars and trucks | 3.5 | -0.3 | 41.7 | | Alcoholic beverages | 1.0 | -0.3 | 2.4 | | Food away from home | 6.2 | -0.35 | 4.6 | | Recreation services | 3.7 | -0.6 | 3.7 | | Household furnishings and supplies | 3.7 | -0.7 | 3 | | Owners’ equivalent rent | 22.4 | n/a3 | 2.4 |

As you can see, the items that are increasing at less than 2 percent a year — highlighted in blue — are all things disproportionately consumed by lower-income households. Rent, in particular, makes up a much higher share of spending for low-income households. Rent growth slowed sharply during the pandemic and, unlike many other prices, it has not so far accelerated again. Rent growth over the past year is about half the average rate in the three years before the pandemic.

Medical goods and services also make up a larger share of spending for lower-income households; prices there have grown slowly or income cases actually fallen over the past year. Prescription drug prices, for example, fell by 2 percent over the past year. Finally, education services, including childcare, have pulled inflation down over the past year, rising by about 1 percent (college tuition was flat.) Education inflation has been slowing for a long time — a trend I don’t recall seeing discussed much — but it slowed even more during the pandemic. Education and childcare make up a slightly higher fraction of spending for low-income households than for others.

On the other side, almost all the sectors where inflation is notably high — highlighted in red — make up a larger share of spending for higher-income households. Lodging away from home, for example, where prices are up over 20 percent, makes up less than 1 percent of the consumption basket for households with incomes under $30,000, but 2.5 percent of the basket for households with incomes over $200,000. Transportation services, food away from home, and new and used cars, which account for the majority of non-energy inflation, are also disproportionately consumed by higher income households.

In general, it seems clear that lower-income households are facing less inflation than higher income ones. The biggest price increases are in areas that are disproportionately consumed by higher-income families, while several of the most important consumption categories for lower-income families are seeing prices rise more slowly than before the pandemic. Any discussion of “falling real incomes” that ignores this fact is at best incomplete.

There is, of course, one big exception: energy. Gasoline especially, but also electricity and heating gas, are seeing big price increases and make up a larger share of consumption for lower-income families. And unlike auto purchases, energy consumption can’t be postponed. If you want to tell a story about higher prices eating up wage gains, it seems to me that energy is your best bet.

Except, of course, that these are prices that we want to see rise, if we are serious about climate change. Many of the same people fretting about inflation eroding real wages, are strong supporters of carbon taxes or permits. If you think a goal of policy is to raise the relative price of fossil fuels, why object when it happens via the market?

At the end of the day, perhaps the current debate about inflation and real wages doesn’t belong in the macroeconomics box at all, but in the climate box. The difficult problem here is not how to keep demand strong enough to raise wages without also raising prices. The price spikes we’re seeing right now are mainly about short-term supply constraints. I am confident that prices for autos and many other goods will come back down or at least stabilize over the next year, even if demand remains strong. The really difficult problem is how we make the transition away from fossil fuels without unacceptably burdening the people who are currently dependent on them.

UPDATE: I am getting some very confused readers, who note that historically rent, education and health care have historically risen in price faster than most goods, while in this post I’m saying they are rising more slowly. The original post, should have, but did not, make clear that the pattern of price changes over the past year or so is quite different from what we are used to. That said, this is not all about the pandemic. As I did note, inflation in education has been slowing for a long time; health care inflation has fallen dramatically during the pandemic but was also slowing before that, arguably thanks to the ACA. But the key point is that I am not saying that poor people face lower inflation in general; I’m saying this is a distinct feature of the inflation we’re experiencing now.

View Details

Like many people, I’ve been thinking a bit about inflation lately. One source of confusion, it seems to me, is that underlying concept has shifted in a rather fundamental way, but the full implications of this shift haven’t been taken on board.

I was talking with my Roosevelt colleague Lauren Melodia about inflation and alternative policies to manage it, which is a topic I hope Roosevelt will be engaging in more in the later part of this year. In the course of our conversation, it occurred to me that there’s a basic source of confusion about inflation.

Many of our ideas about inflation originated in the context of a fixed quantity money. The original meaning of the term “inflation” was an increase in the stock of money, not a general increase in the price level. Over there you’ve got a quantity of stuff; over here you’ve got a quantity of money. When the stock of money grows rapidly and outpaces the growth of stuff, that’s inflation.

In recent decades, even mainstream economists have largely abandoned the idea of the money stock as a meaningful economic quantity, and especially the idea that there is a straightforward relationship between money and inflation.

Here is what a typical mainstream macroeconomics textbook — Olivier Blanchard’s, in this case; but most are similar — says about inflation today. (You can just read the lines in italics.)

There are three stories about inflation here: one based on expected inflation, one based on markup pricing, and one based on unemployment. We can think of these as corresponding to three kinds of inflation in the real world — inertial, supply-drive, and demand-driven. What there is not, is any mention of money. Money comes into the story only in the way that it did for Keynes: as an influence on the interest rate.

To be fair, the book does eventually bring up the idea of a direct link between the money supply and inflation, but only to explain why it is obsolete and irrelevant for the modern world:

Until the 1980s, the strategy was to choose a target rate of money growth and to allow for deviations from that target rate as a function of activity. The rationale was simple. A low target rate of money growth implied a low average rate of inflation. …

That strategy did not work well.

First, the relation between money growth and inflation turned out to be far from tight, even in the medium run. … Second, the relation between the money supply and the interest rate in the short run also turned out also to be unreliable. …

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, frequent and large shifts in money demand created serious problems for central banks. … Starting in the early 1990s, a dramatic rethinking of monetary policy took place based on targeting inflation rather than money growth, and the use of an interest rate rule.

Obviously, I don’t endorse everything in the textbook.1 (The idea of a tight link between unemployment and inflation is not looking much better than the idea of a tight link between inflation and the money supply.) I bring it up here just to establish that the absence of a link between money growth and inflation is not radical or heterodox, but literally the textbook view.

One way of thinking about the first Blanchard passage above is that the three stories about inflation correspond to three stories about price setting. Prices may be set based on expectations of where prices will be, or prices may be set based on market power (the markup), or prices may be set based on costs of production.

This seems to me to be the beginning of wisdom with respect to inflation: Inflation is just an increase in prices, so for every theory of price setting there’s a corresponding theory of inflation. There is wide variation in how prices get set across periods, countries and markets, so there must be a corresponding variety of inflations.

Besides the three mentioned by Blanchard, there’s one other story that inflation is perhaps even more widespread. We could call this too much spending chasing too little production.

The too-much-spending view of inflation corresponds to a ceiling on output, rather than a floor on unemployment, as the inflationary barrier. As the NAIRU has given way to potential output as the operational form of supply constraints on macroeconomic policy, this understanding of inflation has arguably become the dominant one, even if without formalization in textbooks. It overlaps with the unemployment story in making current demand conditions a key driver of inflation, even if the transmission mechanism is different.

Superfically “too much spending relative to production” sounds a lot like “too money relative to goods.” (As to a lesser extent does “too much wage growth relative to productivity growth.”) But while these formulations sound similar, they have quite different implications. Intuitions formed by the old quantity-of-money view don’t work for the new stories.

The older understanding of inflation, which runs more or less unchanged from David Hume through Irving Fisher to Milton Friedman and contemporary monetarists, goes like this. There’s a stock of goods, which people can exchange for their mutual benefit. For whatever reasons, goods don’t exchange directly for other goods, but only for money. Money in turn is only used for purchasing goods. When someone receives money in exchange for a good, they turn around and spend it on some good themselves — not instantly, but after some delay determined by the practical requirements of exchange. (Imagine you’ve collected your earnings from your market stall today, and can take them to spend at a different market tomorrow.) The total amount of money, meanwhile, is fixed exogenously — the quantity of gold in circulation, or equivalently the amount of fiat tokens created by the government via its central bank.

Under these assumptions, we can write the familiar equation

MV = PY

If Y, the level of output, is determined by resources, technology and other “real” factors, and V is a function of the technical process of exchange — how long must pass between the receipt of money and it spending — then we’re left with a direct relationship between the change in M and the change in P. “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”2

I think something like this underlies most folk wisdom about inflation. And as is often the case, the folk wisdom has outlived whatever basis in reality it may once have had.3

Below, I want to sketch out some ways in which the implications of the excessive-spending-relative-to-production vision of inflation are importantly different from those of the excessive-money-relative-to-goods vision. But first, a couple of caveats.

First, the idea of a given or exogenous quantity of money isn’t wrong a priori, as a matter of logic; it’s an approximation that happens not to fit the economy in which we live. Exactly what range of historical settings it does fit is a tricky question, which I would love to see someone try to answer. But I think it’s safe to say that many important historical inflations, both under metallic and fiat regimes, fit comfortably enough in a monetarist framework.

Second, the fact that the monetarist understanding of inflation is wrong (at least for contemporary advanced economies) doesn’t mean that the modern mainstream view is right. There is no reason to think there is one general theory of inflation, any more than there is one general etiology of a fever. Lots of conditions can produce the same symptom. In general, inflation is a persistent, widespread rise in prices, so for any theory of price-setting there’s a corresponding theory of inflation. And the expectations-based propagation mechanism of inertial inflation — where prices are raised in the expectation that prices will rise — is compatible with many different initial inflationary impulses.

That said — here are some important cleavages between the two visions.

1. Money vs spending. More money is just more money, but more spending is always more spending on something in particular. This is probably the most fundamental difference. When we think of inflation in terms of money chasing a given quantity of goods, there is no connection between a change in the quantity of money and a change in individual spending decisions. But when we think of it in terms of spending, that’s no longer true — a decision to spend more is a decision to spend more on some specific thing. People try to carry over intuitions from the former case to the latter, but it doesn’t work. In the modern version, you can’t tell a story about inflation rising that doesn’t say who is trying to buy more of what; and you can’t tell a story about controlling inflation without saying whose spending will be reduced. Spending, unlike money, is not a simple scalar.

The same goes for the wages-markup story of the textbook. In the model, there is a single wage and a single production process. But in reality, a fall in unemployment or any other process that “raises the wage” is raising the wages of somebody in particular.

2. Money vs prices. There is one stock of money, but there are many prices, and many price indices. Which means there are many ways to measure inflation. As I mentioned above, inflation was originally conceived of as definitionally an increase in the quantity of money. Closely related to this is the idea of a decrease in the purchasing power of money, a definition which is still sometimes used. But a decrease in the value of money is not the same as an increase in the prices of goods and services, since money is used for things other than purchasing goods and services. (Merijn Knibbe is very good on this.4) Even more problematically, there are many different goods and services, whose prices don’t move in unison.

This wasn’t such a big deal for the old concept of inflation, since one could say that all else equal, a one percent increase in the stock of money would imply an additional point of inflation, without worrying too much about which specific prices that showed up in. But in the new concept, there’s no stock of money, only the price changes themselves. So picking the right index is very important. The problem is, there are many possible price indexes, and they don’t all move in unison. It’s no secret that inflation as measured by the CPI averages about half a point higher than that measured by the PCE. But why stop there? Those are just two of the infinitely many possible baskets of goods one could construct price indexes for. Every individual household, every business, every unit of government has their own price index and corresponding inflation rate. If you’ve bought a used car recently, your personal inflation rate is substantially higher than that of people who haven’t. We can average these individual rates together in various ways, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is no true inflation rate out there, only the many different price changes of different commodities.

3. Inflation and relative prices. In the old conception, money is like water in a pool. Regardless of where you pour it in, you get the same rise in the overall level of the pool.

Inflation conceived of in terms of spending doesn’t have that property. First, for the reason above — more spending is always more spending on something. If, let’s say for sake of argument, over-generous stimulus payments are to blame for rising inflation, then the inflation must show up in the particular goods and services that those payments are being used to purchase — which will not be a cross-section of output in general. Second, in the new concept, we are comparing desired spending not to a fixed stock of commodities, but to the productive capacity of the economy. So it matters how elastic output is — how easily production of different goods can be increased in response to stronger demand. Prices of goods in inelastic supply — rental housing, let’s say — will rise more in response to stronger demand, while prices of goods supplied elastically — online services, say — will rise less. It follows that inflation, as a concrete phenomenon, will involve not an across-the-board increase in prices, but a characteristic shift in relative prices.

This is a different point than the familiar one that motivates the use of “core” inflation — that some prices (traditionally, food and energy) are more volatile or noisy, and thus less informative about sustained trends. It’s that when spending increases, some goods systematically rise in price faster than others.

This recent paper by Stock and Watson, for example, suggests that housing, consumer durables and food have historically seen prices vary strongly with the degree of macroeconomic slack, while prices for gasoline, health care, financial services, clothing and motor vehicles do not, or even move the opposite way. They suggest that the lack of a cyclical component in health care and finance reflect the distinct ways that prices are set (or imputed) in those sectors, while the lack of a cyclical component in gas, clothing and autos reflects the fact that these are heavily traded goods whose prices are set internationally. This interpretation seems plausible enough, but if you believe these numbers they have a broader implication: We should not think of cyclical inflation as an across the board increase in prices, but rather as an increase in the price of a fairly small set of market-priced, inelastically supplied goods relative to others.

4. Inflation and wages. As I discussed earlier in the post, the main story about inflation in today’s textbooks is the Phillips curve relationship where low unemployment leads to accelerating inflation. Here it’s particularly clear that today’s orthodoxy has abandoned the quantity-of-money view without giving up the policy conclusions that followed from it.

In the old monetarist view, there was no particular reason that lower unemployment or faster wage growth should be associated with higher inflation. Wages were just one relative price among others. A scarcity of labor would lead to higher real wages, while an exogenous increase in wages would lead to lower employment. But absent a change in the money supply, neither should have any effect on the overall price level.

It’s worth noting here that altho Milton Friedman’s “natural rate of unemployment” is often conflated with the modern NAIRU, the causal logic is completely different. In Friedman’s story, high inflation caused low unemployment, not the reverse. In the modern story, causality runs from lower unemployment to faster wage growth to higher inflation. In the modern story, prices are set as a markup over marginal costs. If the markup is constant, and all wages are part of marginal cost, and all marginal costs are wages, then a change in wages will just be passed through one to one to inflation.

We can ignore the stable markup assumption for now — not because it is necessarily reasonable, but because it’s not obvious in which direction it’s wrong. But if we relax the other assumptions, and allow for non-wage costs of production and fixed wage costs, that unambiguously implies that wage changes are passed through less than one for one to prices. If production inputs include anything other than current labor, then low unemployment should lead to a mix of faster inflation and faster real wage growth. And why on earth should we expect anything else? Why shouldn’t the 101 logic of “reduced supply of X leads to a higher relative price of X” be uniquely inapplicable to labor?5

There’s an obvious political-ideological reason why textbooks should teach that low unemployment can’t actually make workers better off. But I think it gets a critical boost in plausibility — a papering-over of the extreme assumptions it rests on — from intuitions held over from the old monetarist view. If inflation really was just about faster money growth, then the claim that it leaves real incomes unchanged could work as a reasonable first approximation. Whereas in the markup-pricing story it really doesn’t.

5. Inflation and the central bank. In the quantity-of-money vision, it’s obvious why inflation is the special responsibility of the central bank. In the textbooks, managing the supply of money is often given as the first defining feature of a central bank. Clearly, if inflation is a function of the quantity of money, then primary responsibility for controlling it needs to be in the hands of whoever is in charge of the money supply, whether directly, or indirectly via bank lending.

But here again, it seems, to me, the policy conclusion is being asked to bear weight even after the logical scaffolding supporting it has been removed.

Even if we concede for the sake of argument that the central bank has a special relationship with the quantity of money, it’s still just one of many influences on the level of spending. Indeed, when we think about all the spending decisions made across the economy, “at one interest rate will I borrow the funds for it” is going to be a central consideration in only a few of them. Whether our vision of inflation is too much spending relative to the productive capacity of the economy, or wages increasing faster than productivity, many factors are going to play a role beyond interest rates or central bank actions more broadly.

One might believe that compared with other macro variables, the policy interest rate has a uniquely strong and reliable link to the level of spending and/or wage growth; but almost no one, I think, does believe this. The distinct responsibility of the central bank for inflation gets justified not on economic grounds but political-institutional ones: the central bank can act more quickly than the legislature, it is free of undue political influence, and so on. These claims may or may not be true, but they have nothing in particular to do with inflation. One could justify authority over almost any area of macroeconomic policy on similar grounds.

Conversely, once we fully take on board the idea that the central bank’s control over inflation runs through to the volume of credit creation to the level of spending (and then perhaps via unemployment to wage growth), there is no basis for the distinction between monetary policy proper and other central bank actions. All kinds of regulation and lender-of-last-resort operations equally change the volume and direction of credit creation, and so influenced aggregate spending just as monetary policy in the narrow sense does.

The costs of inflation. If inflation is a specifically monetary phenomenon, the costs of inflation presumably involve the use of money. The convenience of quoting relative prices in money becomes a problem when the value of money is changing.

An obvious example is the fixed denominations of currency — monetarists used to talk with about “shoe leather costs” — the costs of needing to go more frequently to the bank (as one then did) to restock on cash. A more consequential example is public incomes or payments fixed in money terms. As recently as the 1990s, one could find FOMC members talking about bracket creep and eroded Social Security payments as possible costs of higher inflation — albeit with some embarrassment, since the schedules of both were already indexed by then. More broadly, in an economy organized around money payments, changes in what a given flow of money can buy will create problems. Here’s one way to think about these problems:

Social coordination requires a mix of certainty and flexibility. It requires economic units to make all kinds of decisions in anticipation of the choices of other units — we are working together; my plans won’t work out if you can change yours too freely. But at the same time, you need to have enough space to adapt to new developments — as with train cars, there needs to be some slack in the coupling between economic unit for things to run smoothly. One dimension of this slack is the treatment of some extended period as if it were a single instant.

This is such a basic, practical requirements of contracting and management that we hardly think about it. For example, budgets — most organizations budget for periods no shorter than a quarter, which means that as far as internal controls and reporting are concerned, anything that happens within that quarter happens at the same time.6Similarly, invoices normally require payment in 30 or 60 days, thus treating shorter durations as instantaneous. Contracts of all kinds are signed for extended periods on fixed money terms. All these arrangements assume that the changes in prices over a few months or a year are small enough that they can be safely ignored.can be modified when inflation is high enough to make the fiction untenable that 30, 60 or 90 days is an instant. Social coordination strongly benefits from the convention that shorter durations can be ignored for most periods, which means people behave in practice as if they expect inflation over such shorter periods to be zero.

Axel Leijonhufvud’s mid-70s piece on inflation is one of the most compelling accounts of this kinds of cost of inflation — the breakdown of social coordination — that I have seen. For him, the stability of money prices is the sine qua non of decentralized coordination through markets.

In largely nonmonetary economies, important economic rights and obligations will be inseparable from particularized relationships of social status and political allegiance and will be in some measure permanent, inalienable and irrevocable. … In monetary exchange systems, in contrast, the value to the owner of an asset derives from rights, privileges, powers and immunities against society generally rather than from the obligation of some particular person. …

Neoclassical theories rest on a set of abstractions that separate “economic” transactions from the totality of social and political interactions in the system. For a very large set of problems, this separation “works”… But it assumes that the events that we make the subject of … the neoclassical model of the “economic system” do not affect the “social-political system” so as … to invalidate the institutional ceteris paribus clauses of that model. …

Double-digit inflation may label a class of events for which this assumption is a bad one. … It may be that … before the “near-neutral” adjustments can all be smoothly achieved, society unlearns to use money confidently and reacts by restrictions on “the circles people shall serve, the prices they shall charge, and the goods they can buy.”

One important point here is that inflation has a much greater impact than in conventional theory because of the price-stability assumption incorporated into any contract that is denominated in money terms and not settled instantly — which is to say, pretty much any contract. So whatever expectations of inflation people actually hold, the whole legal-economic system is constructed in a way that makes it behave as if inflation expectations were biased toward zero:

The price stability fiction — a dollar is a dollar is a dollar — is as ingrained in our laws as if it were a constitutional principle. Indeed, it may be that no real constitutional principle permeates the Law as completely as does this manifest fiction.

The market-prices-or-feudalism tone of this seems more than a little overheated from today’s perspective, and when Arjun and I asked him about this piece a few years ago, he seemed a bit embarrassed by it. But I still think there is something to it. Market coordination, market rationality, the organization of productive activity through money payments and commitments, really does require the fiction of a fixed relationship between quantities of money and real things. There is some level of inflation at which this is no longer tenable.

So I have no problem with the conventional view that really high inflations — triple digits and above — can cause far-reaching breakdowns in social coordination. But this is not relevant to the question of inflation of 1 or 2 or 5 or probably even 10 percent.

In this sense, I think the mainstream paradoxically both understates and overstates the real costs of inflation. They exaggerate the importances of small differences in inflation. But at the same time, because they completely naturalize the organization of life through markets, they are unable to talk about the possibility that it could break down.

But again, this kind of breakdown of market coordination is not relevant for the sorts of inflation seen in the United States or other rich countries in modern times.

It’s easier to talk about the costs (and benefits) of inflation when we see it as a change in relative prices, and redistribution of income and wealth. If inflation is typically a change in relative prices, then the costs are experienced by those whose incomes rise more slowly than their payments. Keynes emphasized this point in an early article on “Social Consequences of a Change in the Value of Money.”7

A change in the value of money, that is to say in the level of prices, is important to Society only in so far as its incidence is unequal. Such changes have produced in the past, and are producing now, the vastest social consequences, because, as we all know, when the value of money changes, it does not change equally for all persons or for all purposes. …

Keynes sees the losers from inflation as passive wealth owners, while the winners are active businesses and farmers; workers may gain or lose depending on the degree to which they are organized. For this reason, he sees moderate inflation as being preferable to moderate deflation, though both as evils to be avoided — until well after World War II, the goal of price stability meant what it said.

Let’s return for a minute to the question of wages. As far as I can tell, the experience in modern inflations is that wage changes typically lag behind prices. If you plot nominal wage growth against inflation, you’ll see a clear positive relationship, but with a slope well below 1. This might seem to contradict what I said under point 4. But my point there was that insofar as inflation is driven by increased worker bargaining power, it should be associated with faster real wage growth. In fact, the textbook is wrong not just on logic but on facts. In principle, a wage-driven inflation would see a rise in real wage. But most real inflations are not wage-driven.

In practice, the political costs of inflation are probably mostly due to a relatively small number of highly salient prices.

7. Inflation and production. The old monetarist view had a fixed quantity of money confronting a fixed quantity of goods, with the price level ending up at whatever equated them. As I mentioned above, the fixed-quantity-of-money part of this has been largely abandoned by modern mainstream as well as heterodox economists. But what about the other side? Why doesn’t more spending call forth more production?

The contemporary mainstream has, it seems to me, a couple ways of answering the question. One is the approach of a textbook like Blanchard’s. There, higher spending does lead to to higher employment and output and lower unemployment. But unless unemployment is at a single unique level — the NAIRU — inflation will rise or fall without limit. It’s exceedingly hard to find anything that looks like a NAIRU in the data, as critics have been pointing out for a long time. Even Blanchard himself rejects it when he’s writing for central bankers rather than undergraduates.

There’s a deeper conceptual problem as well. In this story, there is a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. Unemployment below the NAIRU does mean higher real output and income. The cost of this higher output is an inflation rate that rises steadily from year to year. But even if we believed this, we might ask, how much inflation acceleration is too much? Can we rule out that a permanently higher level of output might be worth a slowly accelerating inflation rate?

Think about it: In the old days, the idea that the price level could increase without limit was considered crazy. After World War II, the British government imposed immense costs on the country not just to stabilize inflation, but to bring the price level back to its prewar level. In the modern view, this was crazy — the level of prices is completely irrelevant. The first derivative of prices — the inflation rate — is also inconsequential, as long as it is stable and predictable. But the second derivative — the change in the rate of inflation — is apparently so consequential that it must be kept at exactly zero at all costs. It’s hard to find a good answer, or indeed any answer, for why this should be so.

The more practical mainstream answer is to say, rather than that there is a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation with one unambiguously best choice, but that there is no tradeoff. In this story, there is a unique level of potential output (not a feature of the textbook model) at which the relationship between demand, unemployment and inflation changes. Below potential, more spending calls forth more production and employment; above potential, more spending only calls forth higher inflation. This looks better as a description of real economies, particular given that the recent experience of long periods of elevated unemployment that have not, contrary to the NAIRU prediction, resulted in ever-accelerating deflation. But it begs the question of why should be such a sharp line.

The alternative view would be that investment, technological change, and other determinants of “potential output” also respond to demand. Supply constraints, in this view, are better thought of in terms of the speed with which supply can respond to demand, rather than an absolute ceiling on output.

Well, this post has gotten too long, and has been sitting in the virtual drawer for quite a while as I keep adding to it. So I am going to break off here. But it seems to me that this is where the most interesting conversations around inflation are going right now — the idea that supply constraints are not absolute but respond to demand with varying lags — that inflation should be seen as often a temporary cost of adjustment to a new higher level of capacity. And the corollary, that anti-inflation policy should aim at identifying supply constraints as much as, or more than, restraining demand.

J. W. Mason: Recent Episodes

None