Saturday, July 14, 2012

What does one have to do?


Krugman links to Krugman:

If there is a single word that appears most frequently in discussions of the economic problems now afflicting both the US and Europe, that word is surely “debt.”

I doubt that. Krugman continues:

Sharply rising debt, it’s widely argued, set the stage for the crisis, and the overhang of debt continues to act as a drag on recovery.

Not widely enough. Private debt is still largely ignored. Debt is often said to be the same as credit, and credit is thought to be beneficial.

Krugman again:

The current preoccupation with debt harks back to a long tradition in economic analysis, from Fisher’s (1933) theory of debt deflation to Minsky’s (1986) back-in-vogue work on financial instability to Koo’s (2008) concept of balance-sheet recessions.

Yet despite the prominence of debt in popular discussion of our current economic difficulties and the long tradition of invoking debt as a key factor in major economic contractions, there is a surprising lack of models – especially models of monetary and fiscal policy – of economic policy that correspond at all closely to the concerns about debt that dominate practical discourse.

What does one have to do, to construct a "model" that will satisfy some unspecified set of conditions and make economists think it is a "model"? I'm sure I don't know.

I used to avoid using the word "model". But then somebody asked me, How does your model work under such-and-so condition?

Krugman says "there is a surprising lack of models – especially models of monetary and fiscal policy – of economic policy that correspond at all closely to the concerns about debt that dominate practical discourse."

I say there is a contradiction between our assumption that printing money causes inflation, and our assumption that using credit is good for growth. These assumptions lead to a contradiction between monetary and fiscal policy, a contradiction that is the root cause of debt growth.

What more must I do? What kind of model do they want?

Even now, much analysis (including my own [Krugman writes]) is done in terms of representative-agent models, which by definition can’t deal with the consequences of the fact that some people are debtors while others are creditors.

For the record: It does not matter that "some people are debtors while others are creditors." Some are this and some are that as a result of increasing concentration of wealth and income. The fact that some are this and some are that, increasingly, accelerates the growth and increases the severity of the problem. Yes.

But the problem at root is not that some are creditors and some are debtors. That will always be the case.

Nor is the problem at root the increasing concentration of wealth and income. (Later in the cycle of civilization, yes; but not at present. At present we still have the ability to create policies to deal with such things. At present, we lack only the sense to do it.)

The problem is the increasing cost of finance, due to the growth of finance. Financial cost hinders the growth of the productive sector, making financial investment more appealing that productive investment. And that only makes the problem worse.

The increasing concentration of wealth and income is a convenient vehicle by which the increasing cost of finance carries our economy toward an ending from which no recovery is possible.

// Part 1 of 4. More tomorrow.

5 comments:

jim said...

Hi Art,
You wrote:
"The problem is the increasing cost of finance, due to the growth of finance. Financial cost hinders the growth of the productive sector, making financial investment more appealing that productive investment. And that only makes the problem worse."

This is true, until it isn't.

All the evidence says it became no longer true in 2008.

Even the debt/dollar graph that you favor tells that story.

The Arthurian said...

Hi Jim. Well, sure. But breaking the economy is not the correct solution. You're not saying the economy was better after 2008 than they were before 2008, are you?

My observation is that financial cost hinders growth, and we need to stop the relative growth of finance soon enough that it doesn't destroy the economy. Everyone who praises the "flat trend" on the Debt/GDP graphs is saying the same thing. I'm just laying it out more thoroughly.

Jazzbumpa said...

I still say policy matters, and it's because of policy changes - starting with Carter, then going on steroids under Reagan - that the finance sector grew in the way that it did. Replay the 1920's.

And I think you have tunnel vision - especially regarding wealth disparity. It links up with the growth of finance in an impressive fashion. They are of a piece.

I guess to Jim's point, reversing, frex, debt/dollar, and deleveraging has not pointed toward meaningful recovery.

The metrics have changed, but the policy hasn't.

That, alas, may take blood in the streets.

JzB

The Arthurian said...

"I still say policy matters, and it's because of policy changes - starting with Carter, then going on steroids under Reagan - that the finance sector grew in the way that it did. Replay the 1920's."

Sure. But policy does not change by accident. Policy moves in a direction that is thought to provide some necessary response. It was thought necessary to enhance finance -- at least twice, as you point out -- because both times financial costs had already been hindering economic growth. But policymakers refuse to recognize that financial costs create problems. So they thought boosting finance would boost growth.

The more effective alternative would have been more in line with the policies you are always calling for.

You don't read me carefully enough on wealth disparity.

Good to see you.

jim said...

In regards to your point that financial investment being more appealing than productive investment (which is no longer so true) I would say we are better off.

It took many long decades for the Ponzi scheme of chasing after capital gains to go bust. You can't expect that to turn around in a day. The economy could be a lot worse.