|
There
is a debate in academic circles on the lessons of the current economic crisis.
While most ivory tower debates are of little concern to our daily affairs,
this debate should concern you, as it will inform those who hold central bank
and political power. Remember, there is no playbook of rules for what to do
in deflationary, deleveraging recessions. They are making it up as they go
along.
Today we have a short essay by Niall Ferguson published last week in the Financial
Times. It speaks for itself, and you should take a few minutes to read it.
John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box
History Lesson for Economists in Thrall to Keynes
By Niall Ferguson
On Wednesday last week, yields on 10-year US Treasuries -- generally seen
as the benchmark for long-term interest rates -- rose above 3.73 per cent.
Once upon a time that would have been considered rather low. But the financial
crisis has changed all that: at the end of last year, the yield on the 10-year
fell to 2.06 per cent. In other words, long-term rates have risen by 167 basis
points in the space of five months. In relative terms, that represents an 81
per cent jump.
Most commentators were unnerved by this development, coinciding as it did
with warnings about the fiscal health of the US. For me, however, it was good
news. For it settled a rather public argument between me and the Princeton
economist Paul Krugman.
It is a brave or foolhardy man who picks a fight with Mr Krugman, the most
recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics. Yet a cat may look at a
king, and sometimes a historian can challenge an economist.
A month ago Mr Krugman and I sat on a panel convened in New York to discuss
the financial crisis. I made the point that "the running of massive fiscal
deficits in excess of 12 per cent of gross domestic product this year, and
the issuance therefore of vast quantities of freshly-minted bonds" was likely
to push long-term interest rates up, at a time when the Federal Reserve aims
at keeping them down. I predicted a "painful tug-of-war between our monetary
policy and our fiscal policy, as the markets realise just what a vast quantity
of bonds are going to have to be absorbed by the financial system this year".
De haut en bas came the patronising response: I belonged to a "Dark
Age" of economics. It was "really sad" that my knowledge of the dismal science
had not even got up to 1937 (the year after Keynes's General Theory was
published), much less its zenith in 2005 (the year Mr Krugman's macro-economics
textbook appeared). Did I not grasp that the key to the crisis was "a vast
excess of desired savings over willing investment"? "We have a global savings
glut," explained Mr Krugman, "which is why there is, in fact, no upward pressure
on interest rates."
Now, I do not need lessons about the General Theory. But I think perhaps
Mr Krugman would benefit from a refresher course about that work's historical
context. Having reissued his book The Return of Depression Economics,
he clearly has an interest in representing the current crisis as a repeat of
the 1930s. But it is not. US real GDP is forecast by the International Monetary
Fund to fall by 2.8 per cent this year and to stagnate next year. This is a
far cry from the early 1930s, when real output collapsed by 30 per cent. So
far this is a big recession, comparable in scale with 1973-1975. Nor has globalisation
collapsed the way it did in the 1930s.
Credit for averting a second Great Depression should principally go to Fed
chairman Ben Bernanke, whose knowledge of the early 1930s banking crisis is
second to none, and whose double dose of near-zero short-term rates and quantitative
easing -- a doubling of the Fed's balance sheet since September -- has averted
a pandemic of bank failures. No doubt, too, the $787bn stimulus package is
also boosting US GDP this quarter.
But the stimulus package only accounts for a part of the massive deficit the
US federal government is projected to run this year. Borrowing is forecast
to be $1,840bn -- equivalent to around half of all federal outlays and 13 per
cent of GDP. A deficit this size has not been seen in the US since the second
world war. A further $10,000bn will need to be borrowed in the decade ahead,
according to the Congressional Budget Office. Even if the White House's over-optimistic
growth forecasts are correct, that will still take the gross federal debt above
100 per cent of GDP by 2017. And this ignores the vast off-balance-sheet liabilities
of the Medicare and Social Security systems.
It is hardly surprising, then, that the bond market is quailing. For only
on Planet Econ-101 (the standard macroeconomics course drummed into every US
undergraduate) could such a tidal wave of debt issuance exert "no upward pressure
on interest rates".
Of course, Mr Krugman knew what I meant. "The only thing that might drive
up interest rates," he acknowledged during our debate, "is that people may
grow dubious about the financial solvency of governments." Might? May? The
fact is that people -- not least the Chinese government -- are already distinctly
dubious. They understand that US fiscal policy implies big purchases of government
bonds by the Fed this year, since neither foreign nor private domestic purchases
will suffice to fund the deficit. This policy is known as printing money and
it is what many governments tried in the 1970s, with inflationary consequences
you do not need to be a historian to recall.
No doubt there are powerful deflationary headwinds blowing in the other direction
today. There is surplus capacity in world manufacturing. But the price of key
commodities has surged since February. Monetary expansion in the US, where
M2 is growing at an annual rate of 9 per cent, well above its post-1960 average,
seems likely to lead to inflation if not this year, then next. In the words
of the Chinese central bank's latest quarterly report: "A policy mistake ...
may bring inflation risks to the whole world."
The policy mistake has already been made -- to adopt the fiscal policy of
a world war to fight a recession. In the absence of credible commitments to
end the chronic US structural deficit, there will be further upward pressure
on interest rates, despite the glut of global savings. It was Keynes who noted
that "even the most practical man of affairs is usually in the thrall of the
ideas of some long-dead economist". Today the long-dead economist is Keynes,
and it is professors of economics, not practical men, who are in thrall to
his ideas.
The writer is Laurence A. Tisch professor of history at Harvard University
and author of The Ascent of Money (Penguin)
|