Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations


Krugman writes:
The eurozone looks like the United States — there is no good reason to raise rates. To be fair, on the labor side things look a bit different: there are actual labor shortages in some parts of Europe, reflecting both low labor mobility and the extreme asymmetry of the European shock. But raising rates for all of Europe because parts of Germany are doing well is, as I’ve written before, worse than the one-size-fits-all policy euroskeptics warned about; it’s one size fits one.

Mmmm...

The 'one size fits one' link brings up a graph that shows Germany doing far better than Spain with respect to employment. Krugman's point seems to be that we need different policies for different conditions, even if those conditions occur at the same time.

Well, they could break up the European Union. As an American I rather like that approach. Why should anybody else in the world be as big as the U.S.A.?

But I have a better way to solve the problem. Below is an excerpt from mine of 23 July '09. What it says is we should stop jacking up interest rates to fight inflation. It says we should remember that the money that causes inflation is created by borrowing.

It says we should fight inflation by un-doing the thing that creates inflation: by paying off the debt that results from the borrowing that creates the money that causes prices to increase.

It says the biggest borrowers should pay the highest rate of taxes. It says the tax rate should come down if the borrower accelerates repayment of the loan.

It is a plan to reduce debt by fighting inflation and to fight inflation by reducing debt.

It is the sort of solution that Krugman is looking for but has not found.

From my old post:
I'm not big on making proposals. My interest is to understand the past or, rather, to understand the process. If we understand *how* the economy works, solutions will present themselves. However...

#1. The use of credit adds to the quantity of money in circulation. Therefore, the repayment of debt is a way to fight inflation. I would set up tax incentives to encourage people (and businesses) to pay off their debt a little faster than we have done since the 1970s say. Accelerated repayment of debt would fight inflation and reduce debt at the same time. Sweet.

#2. Taking that a step further, I would change the income tax. (I'm not talking about the LEVEL of taxation, but the EFFECT of it.) When a person (or business) borrows, his/her debt-to-income ratio increases. I would make the TAX RATE vary with the debt-to-income ratio. Your tax rate would become variable, like the rate of interest. And at a comparable percentage as well, I imagine. You could reduce your taxes by reducing your debt!

#3. The variable rate of taxation would *replace* the variable rate of interest in our economy. And the Federal Reserve would therefore be able to keep interest rates permanently low. This would be beneficial for economic growth.

#4. In the long view, I foresee that the "credit cycle" would become a thing of the past. Indeed, everyone would have his own credit cycle. But the economy as a whole would see no cyclic pattern. Thus, the major force that drives the business cycle would be eliminated. Economic growth would be driven by low interest rates and other factors, but there would never be an accumulation of debt that leads to recession or depression. Long view, of course.

7 comments:

The Arthurian said...

The post doesn't quite get the point across.

Krugman says some parts of Europe might need higher interest rates, but other parts need low rates.

I say, let's take this thing that we are trying to achieve with interest rates, and do it with the tax code instead.

By using the tax code we can create the effect Krugman wants: higher costs of borrowing in some areas, lower costs of borrowing in others.

Yeah, today there is too much debt everywhere for my tax plan to work. I say that's because we didn't put the tax plan in place 20 years ago.

Jazzbumpa said...

OK. I haven't digested this, and I'm tired, so bear with me.

But it strikes me as wrong.

You want to substitute tax policy for interest rate policy. This gives government too much power.

There will be unintended consequences, to which you have given no consideration.

Further, and this is a DIRECT consequence, you are effectively tax-penalizing anyone who needs credit to accomplish anything, while giving a tax-preference to someone who does not need credit - i.e. - the rich. Unless I'm totally off base, this is massively regressive, and will stifle new and small businesses - which are the ONLY source of job growth.

At the same time it overestimates the power of the Fed (as Gov't surrogate) to actually manage interest rates. Take a look at the data over the past several decades. Almost all the time, Federal Funds rate changes follow market based changes in issues of short maturity. They do not lead.

Bond rates are set by auction.

The prime rate is set by banks - presumably in response to market forces.

All this being the case, interest rates will continue to rise and fall, pretty much as they always have.

Cheers!
JzB

The Arthurian said...

Jazz... Don't look at it from our present (and long-standing) position as a society that relies excessively on credit. If you do, it looks like punishment, sure. As I said in the follow-up comment, there is too much debt now for the plan to work.

But look at it from a different perspective. Suppose the plan was put in place back in the early 1960s when the economy was still good, and credit was less of a necessity.

The plan would have limited the increase of credit-use (and debt!)... It would have allowed the Federal Reserve to increase the quantity of money (base-money and M1, say) more rapidly than they did in fact... So that today we would have less debt and more money in our pockets. This is my singular objective.

Anyway, as I see the plan, you make a couple extra mortgage payments a year and that brings your taxes down, so you are NOT tax-penalized. That's the point.

Take a look at the data over the past several decades. Almost all the time, Federal Funds rate changes follow market based changes in issues of short maturity. They do not lead.

I definitely will take a look at this.

All this being the case, interest rates will continue to rise and fall, pretty much as they always have.

Yes... but they have not always fallen to zero. Our times are unique. We are massively credit-reliant. With such vast demand for credit, how can the price of credit be so low? Obviously these are not natural phenomena.

I try to get at the unnatural root of the problem. Do me a favor and postpone judgment. Meanwhile, the feedback is most helpful. Thanks, Jazz.

Jazzbumpa said...

I'm not judging. I'm throwing out some challenges and cautions.

Ideas developed in a vacuum can look really good, but be really bad.

I guess the opposite of a vacuum is a big gust of hot air . . .

Cheers!
JzB

Jazzbumpa said...

Take a look at the data over the past several decades. Almost all the time, Federal Funds rate changes follow market based changes in issues of short maturity. They do not lead.

I definitely will take a look at this.

I took care of it..

Cheers!
JzB

Liminal Hack said...

jazzbumpa, I agree. I suspect that the near future will bring forth exhibit A: that market pressures following future monetary tightening in the EMs will result in negative nominal rates on short term T-bills and TIPs.

If that comes to pass (and there have been isolated incidents already, but not sufficient to make a clear cut case), it will be a clear vindication that the market leads rates not the FED.

That will cause some serious soul searching, and of course a whole slew of post-hoc narrative bullshit that blames government intervention at some point in the past....

Jazzbumpa said...

That will cause some serious soul searching, and of course a whole slew of post-hoc narrative bullshit that blames government intervention at some point in the past....

In other words, there will be no serious soul-searching.

Cheers!
JzB