"As was the case in the 1930s, we also have a choice"

Martin Wolf on Keynes on the FT:

"We are all Keynesians now. When Barack Obama takes office he will propose a gigantic fiscal stimulus package. Such packages are being offered by many other governments. Even Germany is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into this race.

The ghost of John Maynard Keynes, the father of macroeconomics, has returned to haunt us. With it has come that of his most interesting disciple, Hyman Minsky. We all now know of the “Minsky moment” – the point at which a financial mania turns into panic.

Like all prophets, Keynes offered ambiguous lessons to his followers. Few still believe in the fiscal fine-tuning that his disciples propounded in the decades after the second world war ( TRUE ). But nobody believes in the monetary targeting proposed by his celebrated intellectual adversary, Milton Friedman, either( TRUE ). Now, 62 years after Keynes’ death, in another era of financial crisis and threatened economic slump, it is easier for us to understand what remains relevant( I SAY USEFUL ) in his teaching.

I see three broad lessons.

The first, which was taken forward by Minsky, is that we should not take the pretensions of financiers seriously. “A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him.” Not for him, then, was the notion of “efficient markets”( I AGREE ).

The second lesson is that the economy cannot be analysed in the same way as an individual business. For an individual company, it makes sense to cut costs. If the world tries to do so, it will merely shrink demand( AS A WHOLE, I CAN UNDERSTAND THIS ). An individual may not spend all his income. But the world must do so( TRY TO ).

The third and most important lesson is that one should not treat the economy( ECONOMICS IS FINE HERE ) as a morality tale( HERE I DISAGREE COMPLETELY. MORALITY IS PART OF POLITICAL ECONOMY ). In the 1930s, two opposing ideological visions( THERE WERE OTHERS, THANKFULLY DEFEATED ) were on offer: the Austrian; and the socialist. The Austrians – Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek – argued that a purging of the excesses of the 1920s was required. Socialists argued that socialism needed to replace failed capitalism, outright. These views were grounded in alternative secular religions: the former in the view that individual self-seeking behaviour guaranteed a stable economic order(I DON'T AGREE WITH HIM HERE. VON MISES CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM WAS MORE THAN A MORALITY TALE, AND SO WERE HAYEK'S VIEWS ABOUT THE MARKET AND THE DANGERS OF TOO MUCH STATE CONTROL); the latter in the idea that the identical motivation could lead only( IT WAS THIS MECHANISTIC APPROACH TO POLITICS AND POLITICAL ECONOMY THAT MADE MARXISM, FOR EXAMPLE, NOT SUITABLE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ) to exploitation, instability and crisis.

Keynes’s genius – a very English one – was to insist we should approach an economic system not as a morality play but as a technical challenge( WRONG ). He wished to preserve as much liberty as possible( I AGREE. AS DO I. ), while recognising that the minimum state( HERE I DISAGREE ) was unacceptable to a democratic society with an urbanised economy( I CAN FORESEE A TIME OF LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT, BUT THIS IS CURRENTLY TRUE ). He wished to preserve a market economy, without believing that laisser faire makes everything for the best in the best of all possible worlds( I WOULD SEEM TO AGREE WITH HIM ).

This same moralistic debate is with us, once again. Contemporary “liquidationists” insist that a collapse would lead to rebirth of a purified economy( COMPLETELY UNBURKEAN ). Their leftwing opponents argue that the era of markets is over. And even I wish to see the punishment of financial alchemists who claimed that ever more debt turns economic lead into gold( I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIMINALS ).

Yet Keynes would have insisted that such approaches are foolish. Markets are neither infallible nor dispensable( TRUE. THEY ARE USEFUL. ). They are indeed the underpinnings of a productive economy and individual freedom( TRUE ). But they can also go seriously awry and so must be managed with care( TRUE ). The election of Mr Obama surely reflects a desire for just such pragmatism( TRUE ). Neither Ron Paul, the libertarian, nor Ralph Nader, on the left, got anywhere( TRUE ). So the task for this new administration is to lead the US and the world towards a pragmatic resolution of the global economic crisis we all now confront.( I AGREE )

The urgent task is to return the world economy to health.

The shorter-term challenge is to sustain aggregate demand( YES ), as Keynes would have recommended. Also important will be direct central-bank finance of borrowers( YES ). It is evident that much of the load will fall on the US, largely because the Europeans, Japanese and even the Chinese are too inert, too complacent, or too weak( TOO MUCH BEGGARING ON THEIR PART ALREADY ). Given the correction of household spending under way in the deficit countries( SPENDER COUNTRIES ), this period of high government spending is, alas, likely to last for years( BTREATHE DEEPLY MATE ). At the same time, a big effort must be made to purge the balance sheets of households and the financial system. A debt-for-equity swap is surely going to be necessary( IT WON'T NEARLY BE AS LARGE AS HE THINKS. TOO MANY PEOPLE WANT THE OLD SYSYEM BACK. IT SUITS US. ).

The longer-term challenge is to force a rebalancing of global demand. Deficit( SPENDER ) countries cannot be expected to spend their way into bankruptcy( TRUE ), while surplus ( SAVER )countries condemn as profligacy the spending from which their exporters benefit so much( THAT'S WHY THEY'RE STRUGGLING TO KEEP THIS SYSTEM ). In the necessary attempt to reconstruct the global economic order, on which the new administration must focus, this will be a central issue. It is one Keynes himself had in mind when he put forward his ideas for the postwar monetary system at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.

No less pragmatic must be the attempt to construct a new system of global financial regulation and an approach to monetary policy that curbs credit booms and asset bubbles( WE'LL TRY ). As Minsky made clear, no permanent answer exists( TRUE ). But recognition of the systemic frailty of a complex financial system would be a good start( OK ).

As was the case in the 1930s, we also have a choice: it is to deal with these challenges co-operatively and pragmatically or let ideological blinkers and selfishness obstruct us ( I AGREE ). The objective is also clear: to preserve an open and at least reasonably stable world economy that offers opportunity to as much of humanity as possible( I AGREE ). We have done a disturbingly poor job of this in recent years. We must do better. We can do so, provided we approach the task in a spirit of humility and pragmatism, shorn of ideological blinker. ( WE GET THE POINT )

As Oscar Wilde might have said, in economics, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. That is, for me, the biggest lesson of this crisis. It is also the one Keynes himself still teaches( I AGREE )."

He gets a bit simplistic, but I generally agree with what he's saying, except for the fact that, long term, I believe that less government with a growing and balanced economy is possible. Keynes view is still too rooted in the 30s to be of major use to us undigested, and is much too pessimistic and mechanistic, as that era tended to be. Again, Political Economy and Politics are underpinned by the context and presuppositions of the time.

What Keynes offers us is a little useful wisdom and a narrative of perceived success at helping the world out of a crisis, which goes a long in times like these.

"policies that do not bring the trade surplus down sharply are inevitably going to cause trade friction, and that is a game China cannot play."

Here's a post that links two of the major "Saver" Countries in their possible responses to a Stimulus. From Michael Pettis on China Financial Markets:

"Earlier this week Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had an article in the UK paper The Telegraph which starts off with “For the first time in my life, I am starting to feel twinges of anti-German sentiment.” The article goes on to lambaste the German government, and especially German finance minister Peer Steinbrück, for what Paul Krugman earlier called “boneheadedness” in refusing to participate in the European fiscal expansion and, worse, for calling British and French programs “crass Keynesianism.” According to Krugman:

The world economy is in a terrifying nosedive, visible everywhere. The high degree of European economic integration gives Germany a special strategic role right now, and Mr Steinbrück is doing a remarkable amount of damage. There’s a huge multiplier effect at work; it is multiplying the impact of German boneheadedness.

Evans-Pritchard explains why a number of European countries, led by France and England, are so angry:

Put bluntly, Germany is pursuing a beggar-thy-neighbour policy. It is not fulfilling its responsibilities as the world’s top exporter and pivotal power of Europe’s monetary union. It is leaching off global demand, even as it patronizes Anglo-Saxons, Latins, and Slavs. No doubt binge debtors in the Anglosphere are much to blame for this crisis. But Germany rode the boom too. It made those Porsches and BMWs driven by the new rich. Its banks are among the most leveraged in the world.

Nor should we not forget that the European Central Bank set interest rates at recklessly low levels early this decade to help Germany out of a slump. Can this be separated from the property bubbles in Club Med, Holland, Ireland, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe now causing such grief? Within the EMU, Germany has gained a competitive edge against France, Italy, and Spain for year after year by screwing down wages. In pre-euro days the North-South rift did not matter. The D-Mark revalued. Balance was restored. In monetary union it is toxic.

The point he is making is that the imbalances were not created simply by “binge debtors in the Anglosphere” but also by those countries that subsidized directly or indirectly overproduction, which ultimately have had much to do with the very conditions that led to consumption binge. This includes not just Germany but any of the countries that created persistent and high trade surpluses ( THIS IS A VERSION OF MY QUOTE FROM DR. JOHNSON. THE LENDER AND BORROWER ARE BOTH AT FAULT ). Evans Pritchard makes the comparison very explicit:

Germany now has a current account surplus of 7pc of GDP. It is hollowing the industrial core of Latin Europe. Yes, Club Med needs to pull its socks up, but the flip side of the coin is that Germany is in breach of EMU’s implicit contract. The rules of the game are that surplus countries should boost demand. The Gold Standard collapsed in the early 1930s because they – then the US and France – refused to do so. The burden of adjustment fell on deficit states, who had to tighten yet harder.

The downward spiral dragged everybody into depression. Germany and China are today’s violators. Their trade surpluses over the last 12 months have been $283bn and $279bn, respectively. They are exporting excess capacity.

What does all this have to do with China? The reasons I bring this up is because it is, I think, a foretaste of the type of nasty battles that are likely to erupt between the trade-surplus ( SAVERS ) and trade-deficit countries ( SPENDERS ) as global demand continues to contract. The overconsuming trade-deficit countries cannot reduce their overconsumption except with a collapse in production (and sharply rising unemployment) if the overproducing countries do not also adjust. Furthermore, fiscal expansion aimed at generating employment in countries with large trade deficits will not be nearly as effective as they might be if they are not matched with programs in trade surplus countries (essentially demand boosting fiscal programs) that prevent domestic demand from bleeding out the trade account ( A VERY GOOD POINT ).

The French and the British (and much of the rest of Europe) are concerned that if their governments borrow to boost domestic demand and employment at home, they are also borrowing to boost demand and employment in Germany, which means that they bear the fiscal cost for the foreseeable future while Germany gets a substantial chunk of the benefit. This may be a great deal for Germany, but it is one hard for the rest of Europe to embrace.

In Europe it is clear to me that the economic debate is migrating rapidly towards consideration of the impact of trade, and it would be surprising if the debate does not quickly globalize ( TRUE ). If Europeans, nominally members of one country (sort of), can get into such an acrimonious debate among themselves, what hope is there for a polite and statesmanlike discussion that involves countries less tied together? I believe that in the US there is a much stronger commitment to free trade and, in spite of Mr. Bush, multilateral cooperation on economic issues, then elsewhere, but politics is politics, and rising unemployment in the US will inevitably lead to the same confrontational attitudes as they seem to have in Europe. ( VERY BAD )

By the way among the dozens of bankers, government officials, academics and businessmen I have met in the past few weeks to discuss trade issues, it seems to me that those of us who have spent the past several months warning about an imminent collapse in trade are getting more and more attention. This is undoubtedly going to become a hot issue next year.

It is not that China isn’t doing anything to address the problem. The slate of bad economic numbers this week and last (trade is down, we are racing towards deflation, investment and consumption growth is down, manufacturing output growth was only 5.4%, electricity consumption was down 8.6%) has confirmed what we all dreaded: things are slowing quickly. The government is trying to do all it can to boost the economy and, especially, employment, but I am afraid they still don’t understand their place in the global mayhem ( LIKE GERMANY ? ). They continue to see China as an innocent victim of the global crisis – not as one of the fundamental creators of the payments imbalance that led to the crisis – and much of their strategy seems to assume that China can adjust domestically without worrying about the impact on the global market. ( NOT LIKELY )

For example two days ago I was part of a panel that included a prominent Chinese economist and think tanker who I know and like very much, and as we discussed what needed to be done I got the impression that he hasn’t considered global implications at all (although as we discussed them he acknowledged many of my arguments). For example, much of his currency focus was on how China can retain export competitiveness without encouraging hot money outflows. But that is not the right way to think about it. China needs to think not only about the domestic impact of its currency but also about the global impact of its currency policy, and how that affects the adjustment that trade deficit countries are undergoing ( VERY GOOD POINT ). If it makes things worse for them, there is no reason to assume that they will remain indifferent to Chinese domestic policies, and there is even less reason that they will run policies that accommodate China’s needs.

China is making Herculean efforts to get out of this mess. It is doing everything it can to maintain growth and is clearly very worried about the pace of the slowdown. Bloomberg, for example, had this article today:" ( THEY TOO ARE PRAGMATISTS )

China’s government plans to lower taxes and reduce the lockup period for home sales to stem a decline in the nation’s property market. Home owners will be waived from paying a sales tax on properties sold after three years of purchase, compared with the previous term of five years, according to a statement today by the State Council, China’s cabinet. The tax will also be levied based on the profit from the sale, instead of the sale price, according to the announcement.

These are all good things because they are aimed at boosting domestic consumption, and to the extent they also affect production positively, they affect non-tradable goods. That is a start. But there must also be recognition that policies that do not bring the trade surplus down sharply are inevitably going to cause trade friction, and that is a game China cannot play. A collapse in trade would force a brutal adjustment here."

Read the rest.

I find this problem of getting the Saver Countries to spend a tough one.

Violent unrest may be sparked around the world by a prolonged global slump unless governments act with greater urgency to jumpstart stalled economies

Gary Duncan on The Times with the head of the IMF's take on the EU Stimulus:

"Violent unrest may be sparked around the world by a prolonged global slump unless governments act with greater urgency to jump-start stalled economies, the head of the International Monetary Fund said on Monday."

I guess you could say that this is one of my main concerns.

"Dominique Strauss-Kahn sounded a stark warning over the consequences of what he argued was weak and uncertain government reaction to the economic crisis. He used a hard-hitting speech in Madrid to single out eurozone nations over what he attacked as an inadequate response.

The broadside from the IMF's managing director came as fears over a protracted global recession, and political fallout, mounted after China said that its factories' output registered the weakest growth in almost a decade last month.

Without swifter and more determined action by governments to boost economies, a world recovery could be delayed until late next year or early in 2010, with grave consequences, Mr Strauss-Kahn said. “A lot remains to be done, and if this work is not done it will be difficult to avoid a long-lasting crisis that everyone wants to avoid.”

I tend to agree with him.

"The IMF has called for governments in leading economies to spend a combined 2 per cent of global GDP, or $1.2 trillion (£1,075 billion), to try to fend off the danger from global recession.“If we are not able to do that, then social unrest may happen in many countries - including advanced economies,” Mr Strauss-Kahn suggested.

He also claimed that violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not reordered to benefit everyone rather than a small elite."

This is one of my main fears.

"Reinforcing anxieties over a global recession, the IMF chief said that the fund would probably cut its current 2.2 per cent forecast for world growth next year. He blamed governments' being unwilling or unable to use more public funds to bolster economic activity. At the same time, he also predicted that China's once red-hot pace of economic expansion was now set rapidly to run out of steam.

“We started with China at 11 per cent growth . . . China will probably grow at 5 or 6 per cent [next year],” he said. “The possibility of a global recession is real. We realise something must be done.”

Concern over China was heightened as industrial output growth from the Asian powerhouse slowed to an annual pace of only 5.4 per cent last month. That was sharply from 8.2 per cent in October and the weakest since 1999."

This seems to be occurring.

"Turning his fire on the European Union, Mr Strauss-Kahn put himself sharply at odds with Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, who yesterday urged European leaders to stick to their fiscal rule books and keep a lid on state borrowing, even as they deliver packages of economic stimulus measures.

Mr Trichet called for European countries to stick by the EU's controversial Stability and Growth Pact that limits governments' borrowing and total debt. But Mr Strauss-Kahn said that existing rule books should be scrapped, and demanded new rules to match the scale of the economic threat he saw."

I understand Trichet's caution, but believe he underestimates the seriousness of the problem.

“We are facing an unprecedented decline in output and we have evidence of substantial uncertainty limiting the effectiveness of some fiscal policy measures,” he said, “What was decided by Brussels . . . 1.5 per cent of GDP in the form of stimulus, is a bit below what we need.”

His comments come amid continued wrangling and sharp clashes between European leaders over how they should react to the crisis."

I'm not convinced that it's all real

"Germany has expressed substantial doubts over the wisdom of pumping huge amounts of public money into economies to try to stimulate growth and has resisted pressures to contribute more to a joint EU effort.

Peer Steinbrück, the German Finance Minister last week delivered an outspoken attack on tax and spending-led stimulus measures generally, and Britain's in particular.

“The same people who would never touch deficit spending are now tossing around billions,” he told Newsweek, in an interview. “The switch of supply-side politics all the way to a crass Keynesianism is breathtaking.” Discussing Britain's cut in value-added tax, he added: “All this will do is raise Britain's debt to a level that will take a whole generation to work off.”

He's as good an act as Yosano.