Economics Goes Viral

Nothing gets me more excited than getting people with no formal background in economics to see how econ fits in their everyday life. In light of that, imagine my surprise when my good friend Eva Funderburgh, a professional sculptor, wanted to share some economics with me! Apparently she’s not the only one spreading the video above, because, as of this writing, the viral video above created by TV producer/director John Papola and economist Russ Roberts has already received over half a million views on YouTube! Papola and Roberts’ video does a wonderful job creating a new way to take a traditional economic discussion and make it more approachable and entertaining to a much wider audience. In my mind, every economics student should watch the video, and hopefully share it with others as well. For those with a little more time, NPR has put together a very entertaining look at how the project came to be.

The economic thoughts and ideas represented in the video are spot-on, and the lyrics are a fair presentation of the differing schools of thought. While the deeper issues behind the video are much larger than anyone could take on in a single blog post, I do see a place that might deserve a small footnote. I do not mean to take anything away from all the great work that went into this video, but I feel that Keynes’ introduction might deserve a bit of further discussion:

“John Maynard Keynes, wrote the book on modern macro”

Depending on how you define “modern,” an economist who died more than sixty years ago may no longer fit the bill. I think it is totally appropriate to say that Keynes wrote the book on 20th century macroeconomics, but the research frontier of the field is moving beyond his ideals. Starting in the 1970s, some members of the field have explored more complicated models based on critiques of Keynes’ work by Nobel Prize winners Robert Lucas and Milton Friedman, among others. These researchers worry that some of Keynesian economics’ critical assumptions oversimplify the world and make the model invalid. While Keynesian theory is still widely taught today and used by many people advising current policy decisions, some macroeconomists now advocate for models that are built on individual decision making, rather than only analysis based on total expenditure.

These “micro-founded” macro models seek to explain trends in data that defy Keynesian theory. One difference between these schools of thought centers on if household consumption decisions can change in response to fiscal and monetary policies. For example, Keynesian theory assumes that policy does not affect the fraction of net income spent and saved and that the amount of economy-wide consumption will simply change by the product of the tax’s size and the proportion of a household’s after-tax income spent on consumption (often referred to as the marginal propensity to consume, or MPC).

On the other hand, extensions of the micro-founded model proposed independently by Frank Ramsey, Dave Cass, and Tjalling Koopmans suggest that if the government were to lower taxes and give households more money, consumers may choose to change their entire consumption-spending decision based on having larger net income, thus resulting in a new MPC. Whether or not the assumptions made by Keynes are valid (or small enough to be overlooked) is a matter of personal opinion, but as the research horizon of economics extends more than half a century after his writing, it appears that there is still work to be done before macroeconomics can perfectly explain an entire real-world economy.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why should we “fear” booms and busts? Why might booms and busts be good? Is there an “optimal” level of economic fluctuation?

2. Who do the bartenders “Ben” and “Tim” represent in the video? Why are they pouring liquor? What does the liquor represent?

3. The chorus of the rap has Keynes saying “I want to control markets” and Hayek saying “I want to set [markets] free.” Is either of those positions right or wrong in all circumstances? Under what circumstances is more government intervention in markets warranted, and under what circumstances should the government stay out as much as possible?

4. What are the critiques that Keynes offers of Hayek? What are the criticisms that Hayek proposes about Keynes? Does one side seem to have a much stronger argument than the other, or do they both suggest that the theory’s view of the world is still incomplete?

5. Do you think the financial crisis of the past few years was caused by people who thought more like Keynes or more like Hayek? Why?

Fed Chairman Bernanke Chosen as Time Magazine's Person of the Year

In a December 16, 2009 article, Michael Grunwald details the reasoning behind Time Magazine’s choice of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for Person of the Year. The article delves into Bernanke’s background such as his working class roots and the consensus that he is “a leading scholar of the Great Depression.” It also details the unique nature of the crises of 2007-2008 to which the Fed responded in creative and beneficial ways.

Chairman Bernanke is currently awaiting a Senate vote to be confirmed for another term as Fed chairman. The vote is being held up by a Senator from the far left and another from the far right. The Time article is largely critical of those who oppose Bernanke, portraying them as nitpicky demanders of perfection who fail to realize that the Federal Reserve’s actions over the past two years most likely “prevented an economic catastrophe.” It is apparent that the Fed, like most people caught up in benefiting from the bubbles of those years, took too long to recognize the danger signs. Yet, the desire to criticize and rein in the Fed’s power now that the crises are largely history is short-sighted and will be harmful to long-run inflation rates. Most economics textbooks cover the extensive research that shows that greater central bank independence goes along with more stable and lower inflation rates.

As Bernanke is quoted in the article, "We came very, very close to a depression ..." That is because in the fall of 2008, the collapse of the financial sector and asset prices looked remarkably similar to the events that marked the start of the Great Depression. However, thanks largely to the bold actions of Bernanke’s Fed, the US experienced a severe recession rather than a depression. That distinction is significant and reason enough for the awarding of Time Magazine’s honor. Grunwald’s article gives evidence that Bernanke’s knowledge and research into the Depression made him the perfect man to hold one of the most powerful positions for influencing the world economy. As written by Grunwald, “He didn't just reshape U.S. monetary policy; he led an effort to save the world economy.”

Admittedly, the severe recession has caused significant hardship to billions of people. However, based on economists’ consensus definition of recession, the US economy has been in recovery and thus out of recession for several months now. Indeed, the figure to the right shows a picture of an economy that will most likely experience positive net job creation in coming months. Such positive net job creation has not occurred since the recession began in December 2007. This scenario looks much rosier than could have been hoped for back in the fall of 2008. This is an important reason why Bernanke is expected to be confirmed for another term:



Finally, Bernanke’s critics need to understand that macroeconomics is not a true science. Despite the mathematical rigor required to publish articles in the field, macroeconomists cannot perform true experiments with a nation’s economy. Therefore, there is no comparison “control group” of a US economy run by someone who chose not to bailout AIG or who refused to dramatically expand the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet with risky assets. We will never know with any respectable precision what might have happened if it had not been for Bernanke’s bold leadership.

Perhaps someday a scientific genius will invent a time machine so that Bernanke’s critics can go back to the early 1930s to experience a collapsed economy. Most economists agree that the experience of those years is the best counterexample to show what we would have experienced without bold action by the Fed and our elected officials. Let the critics be reminded that the demand for perfection is all too often the enemy of good governance.

Discussion Questions

1. What is your reaction to Time Magazine’s choice of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for Person of the Year? Why?

2. Suppose that you were able to cast a vote in the Senate on Bernanke’s reappointment. How would you vote? Why?

3. Imagine you were currently chairperson of the Fed. What, if anything, would you be doing differently?

4. Do you approve or disapprove of the movement to rein in the power of the Federal Reserve? Explain.

The Federal Reserve’s New Target Range

On December 16, 2008, one of the most significant monetary policy decisions in US history was handed down by the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee (FOMC). In an effort to combat accelerating deflation in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and massive job losses, the FOMC announced a reduction of its federal funds rate target from 1% to an unprecedented range of 0% to 0.25%. While critics of the move might point to relatively stable core inflation rates (which exclude food and energy), the FOMC was clearly more concerned about the state of the job market and the accelerating deflation reflected in the headline CPI. In fact, for two consecutive months, the US experienced record CPI deflation with rates of -1% in October and -1.7% in November of 2008. Along with OPEC's attempts to curtail oil production, this move by the FOMC is likely to help stabilize the price level.

The Fed announcement is historic for the low level of rates in its targeting and for the unique setting of a target range. This gives the Fed modest room for flexibility above the nominal floor of a zero federal funds rate. Whether it will be enough to spur the feeble economy is doubtful. Fortunately, the FOMC also announced that the federal funds rate is likely to remain within the target range for an extended period. The central bank is also prepared to purchase agency debt and mortgage-backed securities. Furthermore, through the Fed's expanded toolkit, it will begin direct loans to households and small businesses starting in 2009.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke recognizes that the US economy is ripe for implementing the tenets of his Bernanke Doctrine, outlined in his 2002 speech titled "Deflation: Making Sure 'It' Doesn't Happen Here." In that speech, well before he was appointed to chair the Fed, he stated, "the economic effects of a deflationary episode, for the most part, are similar to those of any other sharp decline in aggregate spending—namely, recession, rising unemployment, and financial stress." Bernanke now has the chance to run the Fed during the precise scenario that he described six years ago.

In fact, the FOMC's press release of December 16, 2008 announces policy that effectively implements most of the seven steps of the Bernanke Doctrine. The FOMC's bold move may stave off a severe recession, but it does not come without potential costs. The combination of aggressive monetary policy, and recent and proposed fiscal stimulus could eventually reduce confidence in the US Treasury's ability to service its debts.

For the time being, Chairman Bernanke appears to be doing what is necessary to support another of his statements from six years ago:

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna [Friedman]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

Discussion Questions

1. What could be the negative ramifications of implementing such a bold expansionary monetary policy at this time? How likely do you think it is that such negative ramifications occur?

2. Do you believe that historically low interest rates will be sufficient to save businesses struggling to avoid bankruptcy, such as those in the auto industry?

3. The current state of the US economy bears remarkable similarity to that of the beginning of the Great Depression. Do you think that Chairman Bernanke and his doctrine will keep the US out of a deflationary spiral? Will the doctrine, along with fiscal policy from recently elected officials, be enough to keep America out of a depression?

4. The US national debt held by the public is currently about $6.4 trillion or 45% of the nominal GDP in 2008. Is there any reason to worry over the ability of the US Treasury to meet national debt obligations? Why or why not?

5. Now that gasoline prices have returned to low levels, some economists may believe that it is an appropriate time to raise the federal gasoline tax. Do you agree with this position? Why or why not?

America's Looming Liquidity Trap

In October 2008, the US unemployment rate hit 6.5%, a 14-and-a-half year high, as announced by the Labor Department. This lofty rate is likely to increase in the coming months in the wake of the ongoing financial crisis and adjustments in the real estate market. It also comes despite two 50 basis point cuts in the target federal funds rate made by the Federal Reserve during that month. These interest rate reductions brought the target fed funds rate down to 1%, a very low target rate by historical standards and close to the nominal rate floor of 0%. The Federal Reserve therefore finds itself in the thorny situation of having only 100 basis points left to work with for possible target rate cuts. (Note that a basis point represents 1/100th of a percentage point, so 1% is 100 basis points.)

The fed funds rate cannot go below 0% because a transaction at a negative nominal rate implies a negative nominal cost of borrowing funds. Furthermore, that implies a positive nominal payoff to the borrower and a positive nominal loss to the lender. Under typical, positive rates of inflation, the real costs and payoffs are amplified. This is shown in the following Fisher equation where i is the nominal interest rate, r is the real interest rate, and is the inflation rate:


This floor for the nominal fed funds rate brings up the very real possibility that the US will soon be mired in a liquidity trap—a situation in which "the monetary authority is unable to stimulate the economy with traditional monetary policy tools." One explanation for this weakness of monetary policy comes from the analysis on the real interest rate given above. In difficult economic times, why would financial institutions take on the risk of lending out money to a borrower who may default on the loan when the real return on even a fully repaid loan is negative!

An excellent source on how our nation might remedy its liquidity trap is given by the 2008 Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences, Paul Krugman. His 1999 article "Thinking About the Liquidity Trap" offered policy solutions for springing the Japanese economy from the type of liquidity trap that now threatens the United States. Krugman's figure 1 from that paper shows a nice IS-LM example of the ineffectiveness of monetary policy. Wikipedia provides a good introduction to the IS-LM model. Below I present a modified version of Krugman's figure 1, in the context of current US interest rates, to represent traditional monetary expansion with a looming liquidity trap.



An economy may also happen to face declining consumption expenditures, as the US currently does, due to concerns about a rising unemployment rate, which can result in lower exogenous consumption and a falling marginal propensity to consume. In that case, the resulting leftward movements of the IS curve make monetary policy even less effective. Krugman's solution to the scenario is to have the monetary authorities credibly commit to sustained higher future inflation. The expectation that such higher inflation will eat away at the purchasing power of cash holdings should convince consumers to ramp up their spending and move the IS curve rightward.

President-elect Obama and the new Congress will undoubtedly undertake expansionary fiscal policy to attempt to move the IS curve rightward. However, our already massive national debt and the likelihood of waste involved in government spending, support Krugman's solution. Our newly elected officials and the Federal Reserve Board are facing unenviable policy choices.

Discussion Questions

1. Suppose that you were in control of US fiscal and monetary policy. What policies, if any, would you implement to improve US economic conditions?

2. Do you believe that America will soon face a liquidity trap? Why or why not?

3. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the world's rich economies will collectively experience economic contraction for the first time since World War II. When was the last time America faced a liquidity trap? What circumstances led to that liquidity trap environment?

Creating Money (or Jobs) Out of Thin Air

Today, amid foreign financial market volatility, the Federal Reserve cut the federal funds rate from 4.25% to 3.5% to prevent a recession. You may read the official press release here. The move is rare for two reasons. The Federal Reserve reduced the federal funds rate before its regularly scheduled meeting next week, and the Federal Reserve reduced the rate by 75 basis points, as opposed to its usual 25 or 50 basis point increments. In summary, today’s move is rare for its timing and magnitude.

The federal funds rate, or the interest rate that U.S. banks charge each other for overnight loans, is the benchmark rate for many short-term and long-term interest rates in the United States. A reduction in the federal funds rate, often times (though not always), decreases the interest rate on credit cards, automobile loans, and mortgages. Lower interest rates encourage consumers to spend and businesses to build new offices and purchase computers, machinery, and software. A boost in consumption (e.g. buying new clothes) and investment (e.g. building new offices) spending are exactly what the economy needs when it is slipping into a recession caused by sudden drops in overall spending. Though the U.S. economy is NOT officially in a recession, the Federal Reserve forecasts “slowed growth” and would like to cut rates just-in-case.

The previous explanation shows how the Federal Reserve could use monetary policy to minimize the depth and length of a recession. However, what is less well known is the process with which the Federal Reserve is able to manipulate the federal funds rate. Essentially, the Federal Reserve lowers the federal funds rate by expanding the money supply. This is easier said than done.

First and foremost, the Federal Reserve does NOT print new dollar bills. So how is it able to create new money? There are two main forms of money—cash in circulation and checking deposits held in banks. Separate from the money supply are “reserve accounts” that commercial banks are required to have at the Federal Reserve. These reserve accounts hold cash for the commercial banks in case depositors cash-out some of their deposits.

The Federal Reserve can expand the money supply by expanding the amount of deposits held in the U.S. commercial banking system. One way to do so is to purchase U.S. government bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury department. When the Federal Reserve purchases government bonds from commercial banks, it takes bonds out of circulation and electronically credits reserve accounts. U.S. commercial banks armed with more cash reserves will issue new loans which are then deposited back into the banking system. This method effectively increases the dollar amount of checking deposits in the economy, and hence, expands the money supply.

Discussion Questions

1. Suppose U.S. commercial banks are highly reluctant to issue new loans even if they are armed with more reserves. How would this impact the Federal Reserve’s ability to expand the money supply and lower the federal funds rate?

2. Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul, believes that the Federal Reserve “debases and depreciates” the currency through its manipulation of the money supply. In fact, he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve altogether. Using the definition of the money supply and the relationship between interest rates and unemployment, how could the money supply be “pro-cyclical” without the Federal Reserve?

Real Wages and Productivity

The New York Times reports that real wages, as a percentage of GDP, have fallen to their lowest level in recorded history. The article contains a number of good nuggets that illustrate some basic points in economics.

First, we need to think about what we mean by "wages." A worker's nominal wages are the dollar value of her take-home pay, not including benefits. For example, if a worker earns $20 per hour before taxes, that is her nominal hourly wage. However, a worker's real wages are the wages adjusted for inflation. For example, if a worker's nominal wage rises by 2% and there is 3% inflation, we actually consider her real wages to have dropped by 1%--that is, the value of goods and services she could afford went down by 1%. (In fact, real wages did decrease in 2005: median weekly earnings increased from $631 to $651, an increase of 3.16%, but since inflation was at 3.4%, the $651 in 2005 was actually worth less than the $631 in 2004.)

However, the article doesn't say that real wages have decreased--indeed, with the exception of 2005, real wages have generally increased over the last few years. The article's main point is that as a percentage of GDP, real wages have been steadily declining. In other words, the growth rate of GDP has been steadily greater than the growth rate of wages and salaries.

But that's only part of the story, because wages are just part of workers' overall compensation packages. Health insurance is the other big component. Due to a historical anomaly, employers tend to pay for health insurance for their workers, rather than workers buying it on their own. Therefore, total compensation to workers can be thought of has having two components: wages, which the workers are free to spend as they wish, and a certain amount of money with which they are forced to buy health insurance. In recent years, the price of health insurance has grown at double-digit rates, far outpacing inflation, while wages, as a fraction of the overall compensation package, have been falling.

Note that the increase in health care spending might very well have had the same effect if workers received all of their compensation in cash, and then paid for health insurance out of their own pockets. Since health care is widely viewed as a necessity rather than a luxury, demand for it is relatively inelastic; therefore, as its price goes up, people might very well decrease their expenditures on other goods and services. In other words, the effect of an increase in the price of healthcare means a decrease in consumers' real income, and the fact that wages and salaries don't include benefits serves to highlight this effect.

However, even if we take into account both wages and benefits, overall compensation has still been falling in recent years as a fraction of GDP, while corporate profits have been increasing. Why? Workers have been more productive--that is, creating more output per hour of labor--which has meant higher revenues for firms. Those revenues accrue to different factors of production: wages to workers, rent to capital, and profits to shareholders. The article's main point is that the gains in worker productivity have not accrued to workers, but instead have gone largely to shareholders.

Describing how wages, benefits, and profits have changed over past years is the province of positive analysis. The article raises an important normative question as well: is it fair that wages have not kept pace with productivity? Or that the top 1% of earners received over 11% of all wage income, up from 6% three decades ago? These are important questions as well, but economic analysis is less helpful in answering them.

1. Suppose the U.S. government provided national health insurance for everyone. Do you think wages and salaries would still be falling? What about after-tax wages?

2. The divvying up of the economic pie appears to be a zero-sum game: there is a certain amount of economic surplus out there to be divided between profits and wages, and more of it has been going to profits. Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, lays the blame for lower real wages on workers' lack of bargaining power. Would a greater rate of unionization help to achieve greater equity? Would it do so at the expense of efficiency? What about using government taxes and transfers to achieve greater redistribution of income from rich to poor households? Would economic policies aimed at a more equitable division of the economic pie mean a decrease in the size of the pie?

3. If labor markets were perfectly competitive, wages would increase directly with productivity. (For a simulation of how this works, see this demonstration of an interactive experiment based on the classical theory of the labor market.) What about the real labor market is a departure from this model?

Update: This has been a hot topic on the blogosphere. Greg Mankiw, Russell Roberts, and David Altig have posted comments on the article (and others' comments on it). More to follow, I'm sure, and we'll keep you updated.

How to Cure Inflation

Argentina is no stranger to inflation and has suffered frequent periods of devastating inflation since 1945. Despite recent praise from the International Monetary Fund for its economic growth, Argentina currently suffers from a 12.3% inflation rate (compared to only 4% in the United States).

Milton Friedman, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics, compares inflation to alcoholism in his PBS series, Free to Choose:

Inflation is just like alcoholism, in both cases, when you start drinking or when you start printing too much money. The good effects come first; the bad effects only come later. That's why, in both cases, there is a strong temptation to overdo it, to drink too much and to print too much money. When it comes to the cure, it's the other way around, when you stop drinking or when you stop printing money the bad effects come first and the good effects only come later. That's why it's so hard to persist with the cure.

Source: Free to Choose, Volume 9 of 10, How to Cure Inflation (26:40)

A simple aggregate demand (AD) and aggregate supply (AS) diagram offers great insight into Friedman's analogy and Argentina's inflation woes. The following AD-AS diagram is based on a paper by Professor David Romer. The model might be slightly different from the AD-AS diagram in your textbook.

First, let's look at the assumptions in the model. The aggregate demand curve (AD) assumes that the central bank raises the interest rate in order to combat inflation. For example, if the inflation rate increases, then the central bank will raise the interest rate to reduce consumption and investment, thereby lowering output. The short-run aggregate supply curve (SRAS) represents the inflation rate. The long-run aggregate supply curve represents the output level where the inflation rate has no tendency to change. The long-run aggregate supply curve is often referred to as potential output or full-employment output.

Second, let's look at the short-run effects of an increase in the money supply. In the short run, economists assume that the inflation rate is temporarily fixed. The short run might be a period of 1 day, 1 month, or 1 year. There is no consensus about how long the short run lasts. If the central bank expands the money supply, then the interest rate falls. A fall in the interest rate stimulates consumption and investment spending which shifts the aggregate demand curve to the right from AD1 to AD2.The good effects come first--in the short run, it seems as though the economy has benefited from a higher quantity of money. Output increased from $450 billion to $500 billion which creates more jobs without increasing inflation.

Third, let's look at the long-run effects of an increase in the money supply. The output level at time B is not a sustainable amount of output because $500 billion exceeds full-employment output, which is only $450 billion. An output level above the full-employment output necessarily means that resources in the economy are being over-utilized. Inflation expectations increase in the long run as a consequence of over-utilization, which causes the inflation rate to gradually increase from SRAS1 to SRAS2.

As the inflation rate increases, the central bank frantically tries to contain inflation by increasing the interest rate which reduces output gradually from $500 billion to $450 billion.

The bad effects come later--in the long run, the monetary expansion leads to soaring inflation without creating any new jobs. Historically, a high inflation rate is associated with lower rates of long-run economic growth. High inflation rates create uncertainty about future production costs and the future purchasing power of the currency. As a result, high inflation tends to discourage saving and investment--both important determinants of long-run economic growth.

The following graphs show the time path for the inflation rate and output between time A and time E. Notice that the good effects occur between time A and B, but the bad effects occur between times B and E.1. Despite the central bank's attempts to reduce inflation between times B and E, the inflation rate inevitably still increases. What can explain this?

2. Suppose the economy is at time E. What must Argentina's central bank do in order to reduce the inflation rate from 12% to 2%? Will this be politically popular?

3. Using the AD-AS model, explain what Friedman means by "When it comes to the cure, it's the other way around, when you stop drinking or when you stop printing money the bad effects come first and the good effects only come later. That's why it's so hard to persist with the cure."